Abstract
The inclusion in the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) of the option for local education agencies (LEAs) to use an assessment of a student’s response to intervention (RTI) as an alternative to the evaluation of a student’s ability-achievement discrepancy in determining whether the student can be classified as having a learning disability (LD) has spawned much controversy and much hope. Because RTI is embedded in the nation’s special education law, and is particularly connected with procedures for determining LD, much of the public discussion about RTI has focused on whether the assessment ofRTI is psychometrically defendable and sufficiently comprehensive to verify the existence of LD (Batsche, Kavale, and Kovaleski, 2006). In addressing potential pitfalls of RTI, then, there is a temptation to conceptualize elements of this controversy as the critical issues facing the field in implementing RTI and the multi-tier model that has been inextricably tied to RTI (Batsche et al., 2005).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allington, R. L. (2006). Research and the three-tier model. Reading Today, 23, 20.
Allington, R. L. & Walmsley, S. A. (Eds.) (1995). No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Problems in America's Elementary Schools. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). IDEA 2004 and Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
Batsche, G., Kavale, K. A., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). Competing views: a dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6–19.
Berninger, V. W., Stage, S. A., Smith, D. R., & Hildebrand, D. (2001). Assessment for reading and writing intervention: a 3-tier model for prevention and remediation. In J. W. Andrews, D. H. Saklofske, & H. L. Janzen. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychoeducational Assessment: Ability, Achievement, and Behavior in Children. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
Ellis, A. (2005). Research on Educational Innovations (4th ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: an evidence-based evaluation. In L. D. R. Bradley & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flugum, K. R. & Reschly, D. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–14.
Fuchs, L. S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handicapped pupils: review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 5–12.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171.
Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (2005). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Christ, T., Prasse, D., Vanderwood, M., & Shinn, M. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: a response to intervention perspective. The School Psychologist, 59, 26–30.
Heartland Area Education Agency (2001). Procedures Manual for Special Education. Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency.
Hiebert, E. (1994). Reading recovery in the United States: what difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23, 15–25.
IDEIA (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. H. R. 1350, 108 Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004). Available online at http://frwebgate.access. gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_ public_laws_docid=f:publ446.108 on June 14, 2006.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1988). Student Achievement Through Staff Development. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Kavale, K. A. (1990). Effectiveness of special education. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The Handbook of School Psychology (pp. 868–898). New York: John Wiley.
Kavale, K. A., Kaufman, A. S., Naglieri, J. A., & Hale, J. B. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities. The School Psychologist, 59, 16–25.
Kovaleski, J. F. (2002). Best practices in operating pre-referral intervention teams. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 645–655). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Kovaleski, J. F. (2005). IDEA reauthorization includes RTI: now what? Communique, 34, 26.
Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16–25.
Lillenstein, J. & Pedersen, J. (2006). Data analysis teams: results from Cornwall–Lebanon School District. Unpublished manuscript, Lebanon, PA.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: the Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187–200.
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2003). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Paper presented at the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Students to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instructions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, US Government Printing Office.
NCLB (2001). No Child Left Behind Act. P.L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved online at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index. html, June 14, 2006.
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 119–134.
Reschly, D. J. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: the past is not the future. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV I (pp. 3–20). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
Rosenfield, S. & Gravois, T. (1996). Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaborating for Change. New York: Guilford.
Schmoker, M. (2002). Results: The key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Lutz, J. G., Santoro, L. E., & Hintze, J. M. (2006). Curriculum based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests: reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19–35.
Shinn, M. R. & Garman, G. (2006). AIMSweb. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation, Inc.
Slavin, R. & Madden, N. A. (2006). 4Sight Benchmark Assessments. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350–361.
Stevens, R. & Rosenshine, B. (1981). Advances in research on teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1–9.
Sweet, R. W. (2004). The big picture: where we are nationally on the reading front and how we got here. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (pp. 13–44). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: the promise and potential pitfalls. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kovaleski, J.F. (2007). Potential Pitfalls of Response to Intervention. In: Jimerson, S.R., Burns, M.K., VanDerHeyden, A.M. (eds) Handbook of Response to Intervention. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49053-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49053-3_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-49052-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-49053-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)