Research Roundup (LD News: June 2007)

By Dr. Sheldon H. Horowitz
Director of Professional Services, NCLD

More on Response to Intervention

During the past few months, it has become increasingly apparent to anyone who keeps up with  "what's hot and what's not" in the education community that Response to Intervention (RTI) is on the move. When I first wrote about RTI in July 2005, I referred readers to a 2002 Learning Disabilities Roundtable convened by NCLD to find common ground on this topic among 10 leading organizations. A series of follow-up meetings resulted in the formulation of policy recommendations about RTI and how to improve services and supports to students with LD.

In November 2005, I shared some details about the tiers that typify RTI models in Response to Intervention: Tiers Without Tears. And in November 2006, I described a new and exciting project called Recognition and Response, an emerging program that is a downward extension of RTI. All of these columns offer links to additional resources, and more can be found on an RTI section of NCLD's Web site. With RTI-focused federal grant competitions currently underway, unprecedented interest in early intervening services for students who struggle with learning, attention to progress monitoring in general education settings, and efforts to align the benefits and opportunities of IDEA and NCLB to promote (and accelerate) student learning, these are very exciting and challenging times.

Essential Reading on RTI 
Among the many texts and papers that have been published about RTI during the past few months, I would like to make specific mention of two articles that appeared in the May 2007 (Volume 22, Number 2) edition of Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice. They are worthy of mention (and deserving of consideration) for very different reasons, which will become apparent as you read on. My intention is to both "wet" your appetite and "whet" (sharpen) your thinking about the potential benefits and challenges when incorporating features of RTI into practice. As always, I welcome your feedback at  This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

What We Need to Know about RTI (and Shouldn't Be Afraid to Ask)
This first article (pg. 129-136) was written by Doug Fuchs and Don Deshler, co-directors of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. They speak about the need for caution when jumping onto the RTI bandwagon and encourage those who are interested in implementing (or who are already using) a multi-tiered approach to identify and provide services to students with intellectual honesty and integrity. They suggest, for example, that although doing so is convenient, there are insufficient research data to support the use of a one-time universal screening measure early in the school year to identify students who might be "at risk" for learning difficulties (e.g. many of the students identified "recover" spontaneously over time, without more intensive intervention). They instead recommend the use of one-time screening activities coupled with short-term progress monitoring prior to making the determination of "risk." The authors go on to address such questions as:

What is the purpose of RTI? (early intervention? disability identification? both?)
What conditions support RTI's successful implementation?
What is the nature of instruction in Tier I of an RTI Model? and
Is there need of formal testing by multidisciplinary teams in an RTI approach?

From IDEA to Implementation: A Discussion of Foundational and Future Responsiveness-to-Intervention
The second article (pg. 137-146) was written by Amy Feiker Hollenbeck, a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It begins by providing some background on the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA and how this law opens the door for wide-scale implementation of RTI approaches. It continues by reminding us of the need for "high-quality, research-based instruction for all students in the general education environment" at the heart of Tier I of an RTI model, and of screening, benchmark testing, progress monitoring and higher intensity instruction (individually and in small groups) for students in Tiers II and III. It makes specific mention of the obvious link between "learning deficits" and "poor instruction" and reminds us that high quality (often referred to as "highly effective," "research validated" or "scientific, research-based") instruction is a key to effective RTI implementation. There are sections of the article that explain the differences between "problem solving," "standard treatment" and "mixed model" approaches, and examples are given about how each of these elements operates in school settings. And as in the first article, there is a discussion about the "Role of RTI in the Identification of LD."

How Much is Enough?
The current climate in educational reform around the issue of RTI has generated more than just a little tension (not necessarily a bad thing) among researchers, school administrators, educators and policy officials. The questions that are being asked about RTI and the different types of data that are being generated by researchers and practitioners are precisely what we in the LD community need to ensure that our students both have access to general education curricula and are making progress against the same achievement standards as students who do not have special learning needs. While we have far more questions than answers about RTI, it makes little sense to "wait-to act" when we know, both intuitively and through robust empirical studies, that features of RTI, ready and available to be introduced into classrooms, hold enormous potential to jumpstart the kind of change that can have an immediate and positive impact on effective instruction.

Below are just a few questions about RTI from my personal short list. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

What are the necessary (or perhaps just sufficient) conditions that need to be in place for an RTI model to work in a given school setting?
Are there preliminary steps that we can be encouraging schools and teacher preparation institutions to take in order to cultivate a climate of acceptance for RTI and increase the likelihood that it will succeed if implemented with fidelity?
In the absence of a thoughtful, well-resourced and highly supported RTI effort, what should schools (all schools!) be doing to infuse the most powerful and effective aspects of RTI into school-wide practice?
Is there a down side to not implementing RTI in an all-or-none fashion, and if not, what are the most promising types of activities that could have the greatest and most immediate impact on systems change and on student learning? What do these activities cost? What level of training and support is needed to implement them effectively and sustain their use over time?

Additional Resources

Visit NCLD's LDInfoZone for more information on Response to Intervention.

Be sure to download NCLD's A Parent's Guide to Response to Intervention (RTI). This guide explains how IDEA includes a new provision that allows states and school districts to use high quality, research-based instruction in general and special education to provide services and interventions to students who may be at risk or suspected of having learning disabilities. NCLD has written this Guide to provide an overview of the RTI process, describe how it is implemented in schools and offer questions that parents can ask.


Any comments or feedback you would like to share about this column or other LD.org information would be greatly appreciated! Please address your e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Did you enjoy this article? Would you like to help support NCLD programs? Click here to become a FRIEND of NCLD today.