Table Of ContentThe Promise of resPonse To inTervenTion
The Promise of
response to intervention
Evaluating Current Science and Practice
Edited by
Todd A. Glover
ShAron vAuGhn
T G P
he uilford ress
new York london
© 2010 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012
www.guilford.com
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording,
or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The promise of response to intervention : evaluating current science and practice /
edited by Todd A. Glover, Sharon Vaughn.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-60623-562-1 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Remedial teaching. 2. School failure—Prevention. I. Glover, Todd A.
II. Vaughn, Sharon, 1952–
LB1029.R4P76 2010
372.43—dc22
2009052909
About the editors
Todd A. Glover, PhD, is Research Assistant Professor at the Nebraska Center
for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln. His research focuses on response to intervention (RTI),
academic and behavioral interventions and assessments for students at risk,
and methods for integrating empirical evidence and practice. Dr. Glover is
the principal or co-principal investigator of several ongoing grant projects
funded by the United States Department of Education’s Institute of Educa-
tion Sciences and the Nebraska Department of Education, including a state
RTI consortium, postdoctoral training program, and various research stud-
ies investigating service delivery and professional development for RTI.
Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corporation Regents
Chair in Human Development and Executive Director of the Meadows
Center for Preventing Educational Risk at the University of Texas at Aus-
tin. She is the principal investigator or co-principal investigator of numer-
ous research grants funded by the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the Texas
Education Agency.
v
Contributors
Lynanne Black, PhD, Department of Educational and School Psychology,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania
Karen Blase, PhD, FPG, Child Development Institute, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Christina H. Boice, MA, School Psychology Program, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Matthew K. Burns, PhD, School Psychology Program, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Theodore J. Christ, PhD, School Psychology Program, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Ben Clarke, PhD, Instructional Research Group, Los Alamitos, California,
and Pacific Institutes for Research, Eugene, Oregon
Susan De La Paz, PhD, Department of Special Education, University of
Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
Carolyn A. Denton, PhD, Children’s Learning Institute, University
of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
Christine Espin, PhD, Department of Education and Child Studies,
University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, and Department
of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Dean Fixsen, PhD, FPG, Child Development Institute, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Russell Gersten, PhD, Instructional Research Group, Los Alamitos,
California
vii
viii Contributors
Todd A. Glover, PhD, Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth,
Families and Schools, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska
John M. Hintze, PhD, Department of Student Development and Pupil
Personnel Services, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst,
Massachusetts
Robert H. Horner, PhD, Special Education Department, University of
Oregon, Eugene, Eugene, Oregon
Tanya Ihlo, PhD, Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth,
Families and Schools, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska
Joseph F. Kovaleski, DEd, Program in School Psychology, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania
Amanda M. Marcotte, PhD, Department of Student Development
and Pupil Personnel Services, University of Massachusetts Amherst,
Amherst, Massachusetts
Kristen L. McMaster, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Melissa Nantais, PhD, School Psychology Department, University
of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan
Rebecca Newman-Gonchar, PhD, Instructional Research Group,
Los Alamitos, California
Deborah Reed, PhD, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
George Sugai, PhD, Educational Psychology Department, Neag School
of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
Isadora Szadokierski, MA, School Psychology Program, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Sharon Vaughn, PhD, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Jeanne Wanzek, PhD, School of Teacher Education, Florida Center for
Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
Preface
T
eachers confront considerable challenges in supporting stu-
dents in their classrooms. Given unique learning and behavioral concerns,
competing time demands, and a wide range of political and cultural influ-
ences, the provision of equitable educational opportunities for all children
and adolescents requires skillful attention to the appropriate use of new
strategies and resources. Although traditional models for the delivery of
instruction support select students, educators have continued to press for
novel approaches to meet a wider range of individuals’ needs.
Given its potential to impact school outcomes for numerous students,
educators have recently focused significant attention on a response-to-
intervention (RTI) model for guiding their work in schools. Within an RTI
framework, school personnel set strong standards for achievement and
work together to use student data to inform the implementation of research-
based instruction and intervention to maximize opportunities for students’
success. Assessment tools are used to make decisions about the effectiveness
of instruction and students’ need for and response to scientifically based
intervention, and practices are implemented for all students based on clearly
identified instructional goals.
Because the impact of RTI is contingent upon the quality of its imple-
mentation, critical consideration of which specific RTI processes and prac-
tices optimize student success is needed. By continuing to investigate aspects
of an RTI model, researchers are better able to identify which components
are necessary and vital for promoting student success. By integrating prac-
tices identified as optimally effective within classrooms, school stakeholders
increase opportunities for positive outcomes.
ix
