Foundations and Research on Identifying Model Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sites

Mellard, Daryl F.; Byrd, Sara E.; Johnson, Evelyn S.; Tollefson, Julie M.; Boesche, Liz

doi:10.2307/1593676

Cited by 34 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As supposed support, they cite Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson & Boesche (2004) for an alternative, general application of RTI. As supposed support, they cite Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson & Boesche (2004) for an alternative, general application of RTI.…”

Section: Rti and Sldmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Legal Dimension of RTI—Confusion Confirmed

Zirkel

2012

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this issue of Learning Disability Quarterly (LDQ), Professors Daves and Walker reply to my earlier LDQ article on confusion in the cases and commentary about the legal dimension of RTI. In this brief rejoinder, I show that their reply confirms rather than resolves the confusion in their original commentary in 2010. This persistent problem appears to be largely attributable to lack of accuracy and precision in examining and evaluating the law-including the legislation, regulations, court decisions, and administrative rulings-as distinct from the lore-including their particular professional perceptions and recommendations. For example, they confuse the specific scope and requirements for RTI in the IDEA with the more generic, long-standing practice of general education interventions. Indeed, their response inadvertently compounds the confusion by less than careful and complete interpretation and citation of various legal sources.Keywords response to intervention, case law, specific learning disability, IDEA About the AuthorPerry A. Zirkel is university professor of education and law at Lehigh University, where he formerly was dean of the College of Education and more recently held the Iacocca Chair in Education for its five-year term. He has a PhD in Educational Administration and a JD from the University of Connecticut, and a Master of Laws degree from Yale University. He has written more than 1,300 publications on various aspects of school law, with an emphasis on legal issues in special education. He writes a regular column for Principal magazine and did so previously for Phi Delta Kappan and Teaching Exceptional Children.

show abstract

Section: Rti and Sldmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Legal Dimension of RTI—Confusion Confirmed

Zirkel

2012

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice, many schools implementing an RTI model report using a DR approach to screening, often with only one screening measure (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004). Yet research demonstrates that DR approaches do not reach desired levels of accuracy for planning and implementing interventions in an RTI framework (Jenkins et al, 2007).…”

Section: Purpose Of the Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Accuracy of a Direct Route Screening Process

Johnson

Jenkins

Petscher³

2010

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a response-to-intervention framework, schools typically employ a direct route approach to screening, in which students identified as at risk by a screening process are directly placed into intervention. Direct route approaches require screening decisions to be highly accurate, but few studies examining the predictive validity of reading measures report achieving recommendations for classification accuracy. In this study, two approaches to improving the classification accuracy of predictors of Grade 3 reading performance are compared. Findings indicate that the reliance on single screening measures do not result in high levels of classification accuracy. Classification accuracy improved by 2% when a combination of measures was employed and by 6% when a predicted probability risk index was used. Implications for research and practice are discussed

show abstract

“…The position to insist that RTI be used "within the limited context of identifying students with a learning disability" (Zirkel, 2011) is mistakenly using the intervention as a product, a noun. Daryl Mellard (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004) suggested that RTI has two applications: (a) that of a prevention model used to limit academic failure of all students, and (b) determining whether a student has an SLD. Response(s) to intervention(s) are actions taken in determining what works across time-actions from both the student and the teacher.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rti

Daves

Walker

2012

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Professional confusion, as well as case law confusion, exists concerning the fidelity and integrity of response to intervention (RTI) as a defensible procedure for identifying children as having a specific learning disability (SLD) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Division is generated because of conflicting mandates specified in IDEA when compared to mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This article is submitted to address (a) concerns about the misuse of RTI in identifying students with SLD and (b) how schools face the challenges of identifying students with learning disabilities, providing appropriate services within the least restricted environment while attempting to meet the requirements found in NCLB that all children will learn on grade level and be assessed accordingly.

show abstract

Foundations and Research on Identifying Model Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sites

Cited by 34 publications

References 15 publications

The Legal Dimension of RTI—Confusion Confirmed

The Legal Dimension of RTI—Confusion Confirmed

Improving the Accuracy of a Direct Route Screening Process

Rti

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About