Implementing Response to Intervention in a Rural Setting

  • Renee GuyEmail author
  • Amanda Fields
  • Lynn Edwards


Luverne Elementary School began universal screening with reading fluency data in 2007 and has continued to expand its response-to-intervention (RTI) program ever since. The framework for the RTI program in Luverne is slightly different across grade levels, but the goal is to target the bottom 20 % of reading students in order to increase their skills and decrease skill deficits. Depending on the age of the students, this is done in small groups throughout the day (K–1), or at a consistent time across grade levels (2–5). The model relies on universal screening, skill-based intervention groups for each grade level, and consistent progress monitoring with specific exit criteria. Since starting our research-based intervention groups for reading, Luverne Elementary School has seen progress in its reading skills and has been recognized for distinction of excellence.


Reading Fluency School Personnel Rural School Special Education Service Oral Reading Fluency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, G., & Brown, S. (2007). The six-minute solution: A reading fluency program. Longmont: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, A. L., Gleason, M. M., & Vachon, V. (2006). REWARDS: Multisyllabic word reading strategies. Boston: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, M. L. (2000). Rural schools: Diverse needs call for flexible policies. Aurora: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.Google Scholar
  5. Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The Condition of Education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of education, national center for education statistics.
  6. Barley, Z. A., & Beesley, A. D. (2007). Rural school success: What can we learn? Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22, 1–16.Google Scholar
  7. Bergstrom, M. K. (2008). Professional development in response to intervention: Implementation of a model in a rural region. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
  8. Bickel, R., & Howley, C.B. (2000). When it comes to schooling…small works: School size, poverty and student achievement. Randolf: Rural School and Community Trust.
  9. Bowen, S. K., & Rude, H. A. (2006). Assessment and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges with educational reform. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 24–30.Google Scholar
  10. Bryant, J. A. (2010). Dismantling rural stereotypes. Educational Leadership, 68, 54–58.Google Scholar
  11. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, P., Gonzalez, J., & Nelson, J. R. (2004). Stepping stones to literacy. Longmont: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  13. Dexter, D. D., Hughes, C. A., & Farmer, T. W. (2008). Responsiveness to intervention: A review of field studies and implications for rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 3–9.Google Scholar
  14. Firebaugh, M., Jenkins, J., O’Connor, R., Peyton, J., Vadasy, P., & Wayne, S. (2005). Sound partners. Longmont: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  15. Fry, E., & Rasinski, T. (2007). Increasing reading fluency with high frequency word phrases. Huntington Beach: Shell Education.Google Scholar
  16. Gehrke, R. S., & McCoy, K. (2007). Sustaining and retaining beginning special educators: It takes a village. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 490–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, D. W. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  18. Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hass, T. (2000). Balance due: Increasing financial resources for small rural schools. Scholar
  20. Hodge, C. L., & Krumm, B. L. (2009). NCLB: A study of its effects on rural schools—School administrators rate service options for students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(1), 20–27.Google Scholar
  21. Howley, A., Howley, C., & Shamblen, S. (2001). Riding the school bus: A comparison of the rural and suburban experiences in five states. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, J. (2004). Small works in Nebraska: How poverty and the size of the school systems affect school performance in Nebraska. Randolf: Rural Schools and Community Trust.Google Scholar
  23. Keaton, P. (2012). Numbers and types of public elementary and secondary schools from the Common Core of data: School year 2010–11 (NCES 2012-325rev). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education.Google Scholar
  24. Mills, S. (2004). Focus on reading strategies. Logan: Perfection Learning.Google Scholar
  25. Monk, D. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17, 155–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Scholar
  27. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  28. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). Challenges and opportunities of NCLB for small, rural, and isolated schools. webfm_send/23.Google Scholar
  29. Pearson, Inc. (2013). AIMSweb. Bloomington: author.Google Scholar
  30. Provasnik, S., KewalRamani, A., Coleman, M. M., Gilbertson, L, Herring, W., & Xie, Q. (2007). Status of education in rural America. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  31. Reeves, C. (2003). Implementing no child left behind act: Implications for rural schools and districts. Medford: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  32. Richgels, J., & Sande, C. (2009). Collaboration is key for rural challenges. Journal of Policy and Practice, 67, 17–19.Google Scholar
  33. Shepherd, K. S., & Salembier, G. (2011). Improving schools through a response to intervention approach: A cross-case analysis of three rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 3–15.Google Scholar
  34. St. Croix River Education District. (2012). Target and norm charts. Rush City: St. Croix River Education District. Scholar
  35. Strange, M., Johnson, J., Showalter, D., & Klein, R. (2012). Why rural matters 2011–2012: The condition of rural education in the 50 states. A report by the Rural School and Community Trust.
  36. US Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility. Washington, DC: author. Scholar
  37. Williams, D. (2010). The rural solution: How community schools can reinvigorate rural education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Luverne Public SchoolsLuverneUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations