Undermining inclusion? A critical reading of response to intervention (RTI)

International Journal of Inclusive Education

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 863-880

  Ferri, Beth A ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

disability; education policy; inclusive education; special education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865246972     PISSN: 13603116     EISSN: 14645173     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2010.538862     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allington, R.L. 2002. Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2. Allington, R.L. 2010. Responding to RTI. Education Week 3, no. 2: 20, April 12. http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/04/12/02allington.h03.html
3. Artiles, A. 2002. Culture in learning: The next frontier in reading difficulties research. In Identification of learning disabilities: Research to policy, ed. R. Bradely, L. Danielson, and D.P. Hallahan, 693-701. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Artiles, A. 2007. Challenges to response to intervention (RTI) models: Equity and cultural considerations. Response to intervention community of practice. NCCRESt. http://www.nccrest.org/publications/RTI-CoP-9-07.ppt?v- document-name=Challenges%20to%20 Response%20to%20Intervention%20(RTI)%20Models: %20Equity%20and%20Cultural%20Considerations (accessed November 26, 2009).
5. Batsche, G.M., J. Elliot, J.L. Graden, J. Grimes, J.F. Kovaleski, D. Prasse, D.J. Reschly, J. Schrag, and W.D. Tilly. 2006. Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
6. Batsche, G.M., K. Kavale, and J.F. Kovaleski. 2006. Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Instruction 32, no. 1: 6-19.
7. Bradley, R., L. Danielson, and J. Doolittle. 2007. Responsiveness to intervention: 1997-2007. Teaching Exceptional Children 39, no. 5: 8-13.
8. Brantlinger, E. 1997. Using ideology: Cases of non-recognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. Review of Educational Research 67, no. 4: 425-59.
9. Brantlinger, E. 2004. Ideologies discerned, values determined: Getting past the hierarchies of special education. In Ideology and the politics of (In)excusion, ed. L. Ware, 11-31. New York: Peter Lang.
10. Darling-Hammond, L. 1999. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
11. Denton, C.A., J.M. Fletcher, J.L. Anthony, and D.J. Francis. 2006. An evaluation of intensive interventions for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39, no. 5: 447-66.
12. Dudley-Marling, C., and A. Gurn, eds. 2010. The myth of the normal curve. New York: Peter Lang.
13. Fuchs, D., and L.S. Fuchs. 2006. Introduction to RTI: What, why and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly 41(1), 93-9.
14. Gallagher, D. 1998. The scientific knowledge base of special education: Do we know what we think we know? Exceptional Children 64: 493-502.
15. Gallagher, D. 2004. Challenging orthodoxy in special education: Dissenting voices. Denver, CO: Love publishing.
16. Gallagher, D. 2010a. Educational researchers and the making of normal people. In The myth of the normal curve, ed. C. Dudley-Marling and A. Gurn, 25-38. New York: Peter Lang.
17. Gallagher, D. 2010b. Hiding in plain sight: The nature of learning disability labeling. Disability Studies Quarterly 30, no. 2. http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/1231/1278.
18. Gamse, B.C., H.S. Bloom, J.J. Kemple, and R.T. Jacob. 2008. Reading first impact study: Interim report. Washington, D.C.: IES, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. ED-01-CO-0093/0004.
19. Gerber, M.M. 2005. Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38, no. 6: 516-24.
20. Gersten, R., and J.A. Dimino. 2006. Response to intervention: Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly 41, no. 1: 99-108.
21. Gresham, F.M. 2007. Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention, ed. S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and A.M. VanDerHeyden, 10-24. New York: Springer.
22. Hale, J., V. Alfonso, V. Berninger, B. Bracken, C. Christo, E. Clark, M. Cohen, et al. 2010. Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly 33, no. 223-36.
23. Harry, B., and J. Klingner. 2006. Why are there so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
24. IDEIA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act). 2004. Public Law 108-446.
25. IRIS Center. 2006. RTI (Part 1): An overview. http://iris.peabody. vanderbilt.edu/rti01-overview/rti01-04 (accessed March 10, 2008).
26. Johnson, E., D.F. Melard, D. Fuchs, and M.A. McKnight. 2006. Response to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
27. Kauffman, J., and D.P. Hallahan, eds. 1995. The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
28. Kavale, K.A., and D.P. Flanager. 2007. Ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention, and assessment of cognitive abilities/processes in specific learning disability identification: Toward a contemporary operational definition. In Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention, ed. S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and A.M. VanDerHeyden, 131-47. New York: Springer.
29. Kavale, K., J.A. Holdnack, and M.P. Mostert. 2006. Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly 29, no. 2: 113-27.
30. Klingner, J.K., and P.A. Edwards. 2006. Culture considered with RTI models. Reading Research Quarterly 41, no. 1: 108-17.
31. Kovaleski, J.F. 2007. Potential pitfalls of response to intervention. In The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention, ed. S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burnes, and A.M. VanDerHeyden, 80-9. New York: Springer.
32. Kratochwill, T.R., M.A. Clemens, and K.M. Kalymon. 2007. Response to intervention: Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. In Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention, ed. S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and A.M. VanDerHeyden, 25-52. New York: Springer.
33. Lyon, G. R. 1996. Learning disabilities. The Future of Children: Special Education for Students with Disabilities 6, no. 1: 54-76.
34. Manzo, K.K. 2008, May 14. Reading first doesn't help pupils 'Get it': Other factors skewing results of study, federal officials posit. Education Week 27, no. 36: 1-4.
35. Marston, D. 2005. Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38, no. 6: 539-44.
36. Mastropieri, M.A., and T.E. Scruggs. 2005. Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38, no. 6: 525-31.
37. McKenzie, R.G. 2009. Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disability within RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly 32, no. 4: 203-15.
38. No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Public Law 107-110.
39. Orosco, M.J., and J. Klingner. 2010. One school's implementation of RTI with English language learners: 'Referring into RTI'. Journal of Learning Disability 43, no. 3: 269-88.
40. Paley, A.R. 2007. Key initiative of 'No Child' under federal investigation: Officials profited from Reading First Program. Washington Post, A01, April 21. http://www.washington-post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/ AR2007042002284.html (accessed March 11, 2009).
41. Press Release. Kennedy releases report on Reading First investigation. http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-release.cfm?id=3CC1E674-CB51-42C2-A4F9- 90395A0DC291 (accessed March 10, 2009).
42. Reynolds, C.R., and S.E. Shaywitz. 2009a. Response to intervention: Prevention and remediation, perhaps. Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives 3, no. 1: 44-7.
43. Reynolds, C.R., and S.E. Shaywitz. 2009b. Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly 24, no. 2: 130-45.
44. Response to Intervention: Where Are We Now? 2008. www.ncld.org/content/ view/1249/389 (accessed July 3, 2008).
45. Schatschneider, C., R.K. Wagner, and E. Crawford. 2008. The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences 18, no. 3: 308-15.
46. Shinn, M.M., and M.R. Shinn. 2001. Curriculum-based measurement: Cheaper, faster, and better assessment of students with learning disabilities. In New ways of looking at learning disabilities: Connections to classroom practice, ed. L. Denti and P. Tefft-Cousin, 85-109. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
47. Slee, R. 2004. Meaning in the service of power. In Ideology and the politics of (In)exclusion, ed. L. Ware, 46-62. New York: Peter Lang.
48. Toppo, G. 2008. Study: Bush's Reading First program ineffective. USA Today, May 5. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-05-01-reading-first-N. htm
49. Vanderwood, M.L., and J.E. Nam. 2007. Response to intervention for English language learners: Current development and future directions. In Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention, ed. S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and A.M. VanDerHeyden, 408-17. New York: Springer.
50. Wansek, J., and S. Vaughn. 2010. Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education. Remedial and Special Education. http://rse.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/24/ 0741932510361267.full.pdf+html
51. Wright, P., and P. Wright. 2008. What you need to know about IDEA 2004 specific learning disabilities: Discrepancy & response to intervention models. http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/art/ld.rti.discrep.htm (accessed July 3, 2008).