2010
DOI: 10.1177/004005991004300107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

State Laws and Guidelines for Implementing RTI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
119
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
119
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Since 2011, at least 13 states partially require RTI for identification of specific learning disabilities, and many additional states have at least some guidelines for RTI implementation in place (Zirkel, 2011; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). Over two-thirds of districts around the nation have either started the process of district-wide implementation or are fully implementing RTI (Response to Intervention Adoption Survey, 2011); however, because states are allowed to use their own identification criteria to determine a student’s learning disability status (Fletcher, 2008; IDEA, 2004), stability of identification criteria at the state- or district-level is potentially questionable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since 2011, at least 13 states partially require RTI for identification of specific learning disabilities, and many additional states have at least some guidelines for RTI implementation in place (Zirkel, 2011; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). Over two-thirds of districts around the nation have either started the process of district-wide implementation or are fully implementing RTI (Response to Intervention Adoption Survey, 2011); however, because states are allowed to use their own identification criteria to determine a student’s learning disability status (Fletcher, 2008; IDEA, 2004), stability of identification criteria at the state- or district-level is potentially questionable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Logically, successful implementation of RTI, like implementation of RF, should reduce the number of students who require intensive interventions, and less intensive intervention may mean reduced demand for SETs. To test this logic, we used two of the four implementation categories developed by Zirkel and Thomas (2010) to differentiate among states on RTI implementation. In one, RTI implementation was mandatory, and SLD classification via RTI replaced classification based on severe discrepancy (SD).…”
Section: Service Deliverymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Across the majority of these states, RTI is conceptualized as a three-tier model, with each tier providing more specialized and individualized instruction (e.g., Berkeley et al, 2009;Zirkel, 2011). Tier one involves the general classroom, with the inclusion of specific elements that may not be integrated within a traditional general education environment: universal screening measures to identify students who are at risk for academic (and/or behavioral) failure and differentiated, research-based, small group instruction.…”
Section: Journal Of Counselor Preparation and Supervision Volume 7 mentioning
confidence: 99%