Harvard Educational Review
  1. Spring 2009 Issue »

    Editor’s Review: Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention and Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher

    Jennifer F. Samson
    Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention
    edited by Diane Haager, Janette Klingner, and Sharon Vaughn
    Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 2007. 352 pp. $34.95

    Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher

    by William N. Bender and Cara Shores
    Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2007. 160 pp. $28.95

    Response to intervention (RTI) is a model for improving student and school-level achievement that is “rooted in special education” and that incorporates both “formative evaluation, and a continuum of effective interventions” (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008, p. 25). RTI’s emergence in the field of education comes as a result of research in learning disabilities (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004) and early reading intervention (National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) that have in turn influenced federal legislation and classroom practice (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008). Over the past few years a multitude of resources in the form of books, articles, trainings, and websites on RTI have been made available to the public, but unfortunately there is very little guidance on how to proceed thoughtfully when implementing the framework in a school.

    Two recent publications address the merits and challenges of adopting RTI from two different perspectives and provide some guidance to educators on how to meet the federal requirements. The first book, Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention (EBRP for RTI), edited by Diane Haager, Janette Klingner, and Sharon Vaughn, is a collection of chapters that describe research relevant to the RTI model and target an academic audience. Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher (RTI: A Practical Guide), by William N. Bender and Cara Shores, is written with the practitioner in mind and applies RTI to reading programs as well as other educational contexts. Both books have their merits and shortcomings in covering RTI, but together they represent the state of the field from two important perspectives—that of the researcher and that of the practitioner. Both publications seem to support the RTI model and describe important details relevant to RTI implementation, but since the framework is relatively new and untested, I argue that school-based educators should proceed in a cautious and purposeful fashion when implementing the framework.

    In this review, I provide some background on the RTI framework and its legislative, historical, and programmatic contexts prior to highlighting how the two books address the various components of RTI and elucidating the ways in which these two volumes can help inform educators as they adopt RTI. Additionally, I identify important considerations that the books do not address in an effort to urge adopters of RTI to be mindful of potential pitfalls.

    The RTI Framework and Legislative and Historical Context

    RTI is based on the theory that failures in learning are not the fault of the individual child and can be improved by changes in the environment. It requires that teachers monitor their students and that those students who do not demonstrate adequate progress are identified early and provided with access to effective interventions. For students who do not “respond to intervention,” a more intense level of intervention is considered. Using the RTI framework, students can be served in a multitiered educational service delivery system. In tier one, general education teachers rely on the core curriculum and provide students with high-quality instruction. Students are assessed at regular intervals using a variety of methods, including curriculum-based measures (including typical classroom assessments), to ensure that they are making progress. Students who need additional support are identified in tier one (regular classroom instruction) and provided with alternative methods of instruction or intervention within the classroom. For students who do not respond to these additional in-class supports, tier two interventions are implemented. These can take the form of supplementary educational services that can be provided within the school day, such as support from a reading specialist or through a specific research-validated intervention, or after school, such as tutoring. If tier two interventions fail to help the child achieve acceptable progress, students can then be considered for tier three services, which include specially designed instruction and/or an individualized education program (IEP), also known as special education services.

    RTI’s three-tiered model of interventions, a concept borrowed from the public health literature, can be conceptualized as a triangle (figure 1) in which 80 percent of students have their needs met in tier one (the base of the triangle) by standard curriculum and classroom instruction. A smaller proportion of students (approximately 15%) are identified for supplementary interventions in tier two, and a small percentage of students (5%) receive tier three services.

    Adopting RTI as a framework is supported at the federal level in two pieces of legislation, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b). Under IDEA, which became effective in October 2006, schools are given permission to use special education funds to provide early intervening services (34 CFR §§ 300.205[d], 300.208[a][2], 300.226, 300.646[b][2]). In addition, schools are instructed to consider RTI as an alternative to inadequate methods of identifying students with specific learning disabilities (34 CFR §§ 300.307, 300.309, 300.311). Under NCLB, Section 1116(e), schools are authorized to provide supplementary educational services (SES) to students who do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP), which is a measure of achievement determined by performance on state-level standardized tests. Because these legislative acts require schools to identify and provide services for struggling students, educators are looking to RTI to help address these new mandates. Unfortunately, there are a host of unknowns related to RTI, including uncertainties about how to identify students in need of intervention, what type of intervention to provide them, and how to determine who is responsible for providing the services. While the framework raises the hopes of many that schools will do a better job at serving children, it also leaves many unanswered questions. Here I point out the key features and considerations important to RTI and review recent works on the topic that may serve as references for educators who are considering adopting it in the classroom.

    An Overview of the Texts


    In EBRP for RTI, Haagar, Klingner, and Vaughn assemble work on RTI by some of the top researchers in the field of reading and reading disabilities. Section 1 includes three chapters that present an overview of the three-tier model, describe a research study on prevention and early identification of students, and detail the importance of assessment for RTI. In section 2, one chapter discusses the importance of teachers and teacher knowledge about content and methods of teaching, and the other chapter discusses how primary intervention can help prevent the need for special education services among struggling readers. Section 3 is comprised of two chapters that describe secondary interventions and how multiple layers of intervention can affect outcomes in reading. Section 4, titled “Tertiary Intervention,” has two chapters that apply the concept of RTI to kindergarten and first-grade settings. Finally, section 5 includes a case study as well as several chapters that describe implementation of the three-tier RTI model as it applies to culturally and linguistically diverse students, teacher roles, and issues in research. The book concludes with an appendix of general references on topics such as reading, assessment, diversity, etc. While this edited collection provides an overview of relevant research on the topic of RTI, it also includes some redundancy in describing the RTI model, perhaps a result of the fact that each of the chapters is written by a different author.

    In contrast to EBRP for RTI, Bender and Shores’s RTI: A Practical Guide, is a unified presentation of how to implement RTI in a school setting. The book includes five connected chapters and extensive appendices that act as resources for educators who are interested in implementing the RTI model immediately. Chapter 1 provides an overview in which Bender and Shores introduce two ways that RTI can be applied in schools: as a standard treatment protocol or as a problem-solving response. When used as a standard treatment protocol, the RTI framework stresses early intervention and accurate identification of students with disabilities who are likely to need tier three interventions. When used as a problem-solving response, the RTI framework provides a protocol for addressing the needs of students who need more than what is available in tier one but do not require the intense services of tier three. Although the authors attempt to distinguish the two models for RTI adoption, the distinction may be somewhat artificial. These models seem to have more in common than not, and it is unclear whether schools need to commit to one model over another. The authors proceed to describe how to address the needs of diverse learners in chapter 4, and in the last chapter the authors provide responses to some of the questions that may arise when considering RTI as a model. Of particular value to teachers are the short reflections that are interspersed throughout the chapters; they pose and answer salient questions or point teachers to other resources for more information. For example, one reflection segment addresses the question “How do I find and select scientifically validated curricula for RTI?” and another provides resources for teaching English language learners.

    As summarized in both EBRP for RTI and RTI: A Practical Guide, the learning disability community had longstanding concerns about the practice of over­identifying students for special education when, in some instances, students had not received high-quality instruction or adequate interventions before being placed in special education programs. Researchers found that when students were evaluated using standardized tests, some students identified for special education did not have learning disabilities but rather scored poorly because of inadequate instruction or lack of alternative interventions. According to Vaughn and Klingner, in the first chapter of EBRP for RTI, the issues around identification of learning disabilities were raised in several initiatives, including the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002), the Learning Disabilities Summit sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs (2001) of the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Research Council (Donovan & Cross, 2002). The consensus reached across these three initiatives supported RTI, and proponents advised that students must have access to quality interventions before being considered for special education.

    In response to the converging lines of evidence about the importance of early intervention, legislators specified under IDEA 2004 that schools were allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of special education funding to support supplementary educational services for all students, regardless of their eligibility for special education. This change at the federal level demonstrates a clear commitment to support an RTI framework. The specifics on how to successfully implement RTI are left to practitioners at the school level, which is why both EBRP for RTI and RTI: A Practical Guide can be useful. Fortunately, one aspect of RTI that is consistent across models is a multitiered intervention system.

    Tier One


    General Education Teachers as Implementers of RTI

    NCLB stipulates that teachers must provide high-quality instruction and scientifically based curriculum to all students as part of best practice teaching; an RTI model includes this as part of services offered in tier one. This requirement has important implications for general education teachers, whose responsibilities increase under an RTI model. Both of the books reviewed here note that teachers in tier one bear the burden of being informed consumers of scientifically based curricula and having to provide high-quality instruction. The need to identify scientifically based curriculum also presents a challenge to the research community to conduct experimental studies providing evidence of an intervention’s success. RTI promotes an expansion in focus from just the student to also include the teacher and the curricula. Some might see this expansion as a positive development legislated via NCLB and reinforced by the RTI model.

    While schools across the country are adopting an RTI approach, it is important to note that the number of opportunities for professional development explaining RTI and its implementation are limited because very few empirical studies have included a full RTI approach. Instead, the existing research, including work cited in EBRP for RTI, typically includes some important elements of RTI but none that includes full adoption of RTI principles or programs that meet the criteria of “scientific validation.” Bender and Shores list specific programs that show promise for improving reading, but one would be hard-pressed to find a program that has full endorsement as being scientifically validated.

    Both books provide educators with ideas about how to periodically monitor and collect data on student progress, a major responsibility of general education teachers under the RTI model. In chapter 3 of EBPR for RTI, Fuchs and Fuchs discuss the importance of assessment and describe benchmarks in reading that can guide progress monitoring. Holding teachers accountable for quality instruction is addressed in chapter 4 of EBPR for RTI, in which Foorman, Carlson, and Santi describe an empirical approach to classroom observations that can serve as a guide for assessing teacher knowledge and behaviors. Included in Bender and Shores’s guidelines on RTI implementation is a discussion of needs assessment at the school and child level, which can help teachers and administrators determine whether they are prepared to implement RTI successfully.

    Scientifically Validated Curricula


    While NCLB requires that teachers use scientifically validated curricula (for intervention purposes as well as the default curricula), the federal government provides little guidance on which scientifically validated programs to adopt. RTI: A Practical Guide includes lists of curricula and programs that the authors cite as having “some support, and thus, ‘scientific validation’ from various scientific studies” (p. 119). Unfortunately, the authors do not cite the studies or the evidence to support their choice of programs, so educators should proceed with caution and do their own research before adopting the authors’ recommendations. Bender and Shores do, however, provide citations along with a list of research-based strategies and interventions that educators can consider in their teaching.

    EBRP for RTI does not provide a comprehensive list of scientifically validated programs or curricula, but it does describe the component parts of reading programs that are backed by empirical studies. Also, many chapters refer to programs in the context of empirical studies, though none has been definitively scientifically validated as stipulated by law. For example, in chapter 3, Fuchs and Fuchs identify Open Court as a “validated reading curriculum” that was used in a case study. In chapter 4 of EBRP for RTI, Foorman, Carlson, and Santi report on a study that includes four different reading programs—Houghton Mifflin, Open Court, Reading Mastery, and Success for All—yet there is no evidence provided to show that these programs meet the scientifically validated criteria. In addition, chapter 5 discusses in detail two interventions designed for implementation in tier one: ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) and peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS). The other chapters discuss generally core elements of reading instruction that are supported by the research. In chapter 10, Klingner, Sorrells, and Barrera discuss the program considerations necessary when dealing with culturally and linguistically diverse students, but no actual programs or curricula are cited. This is unfortunate, because these students are typically among those who need more intensive interventions. While both EBRP for RTI and RTI: A Practical Guide identify some tier one programs for schools to consider, no program receives a ringing endorsement. Thus, it seems prudent for schools to conduct their own needs assessment, perhaps employing the one provided by Bender and Shores, in choosing curricula that suit their needs.

    Tier Two


    One of the important contributions that RTI seems to make to the educational process is in providing a formally designated alternative to the classifications “general education” and “special education.” This occurs under tier two of the model. In this tier, students may be identified as needing something other than the typical curriculum. This may include intensive small group instruction or one-on-one tutoring, but it does not necessarily require the time consuming, high-stakes protocols and labeling associated with special education. In chapter 2 of RTI: A Practical Guide, the authors provide two case studies demonstrating how tier two can be applied. The first example is focused on a first-grade boy learning new words, and the second example is of a third-grade girl who struggles with reading fluency. The authors walk the reader through each of these case studies, including specific guidelines for appropriate tier one and tier two interventions. The critical component of tier two that is highlighted in these cases is frequent data collection to demonstrate adequate progress.

    EBRP for RTI also describes tier two interventions through several studies described in chapters 6 and 7. Denton and colleagues report on a study that compared the implementation of two reading interventions, Proactive Beginning Reading Instruction and Responsive Reading Instruction, both of which yielded better outcomes for students when compared to tier one instruction alone. In addition, Proactive Beginning Reading Instruction resulted in better performance on measures of decoding words. In chapter 7, O’Connor describes several studies that used a variety of tier two interventions and draws on these findings to discuss the criteria for selecting tier two participants and the content of successful interventions.

    Because the concept of tier two interventions is relatively new for educators, schools are still struggling to find adequate secondary interventions, qualified individuals to provide them, and satisfactory approaches to implementation. Because tier two falls in the gray zone between general education and special education, it is not entirely clear who is responsible for providing these necessary services. In chapter 11 of EBRP for RTI, Haagar and Mahdavi address the issues associated with this gray zone. Because federal law allows schools to allot 15 percent of their special education funds for supplementary educational services, a host of independent service providers is vying for these funds and offering schools packaged programs or afterschool services. As with many of the other proprietary programs in circulation in schools, educators using RTI are finding that few, if any, programs that could help address the needs of students in the gray zone have been subject to research or scientific validation.

    Tier Three

    Under the RTI model, tier three interventions are typically designed for students with disabilities and could potentially include special education services. Tier three serves students whom teachers identify as having demonstrated an inadequate response to quality instruction and the interventions that were implemented in tiers one and two. Because these students would have been referred to special education immediately under the old framework, the RTI process is sometimes referred to as an alternative approach to the practice of using standardized tests to find a discrepancy between a child’s IQ and achievement scores in order to identify students with disabilities (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Both books mention that the discrepancy method was criticized as lacking validity and reason behind the misplacement of students in special education programs. This method also failed to take poor instruction into consideration and placed more emphasis on the deficits within the individual child for poor educational achievement.

    Thus, RTI presents a possible solution to the problem of misdiagnosing students who do not have a disability by ensuring that all students have equal access to quality instruction (tier one) and interventions (tier two) prior to being placed in special education (tier three). The services that are typically offered in tier three would include specially designed instruction and service providers that fall under the traditional special education model. The process at this point would largely remain the same as in the past in terms of special education identification and services, the difference being that under RTI the special education process would be preceded by tier one and two interventions. Some argue, however, that while RTI may serve as a gatekeeping mechanism by preventing inappropriate placement in special education, it may also extend an already lengthy evaluation and eligibility process for identifying students who could benefit from special education.

    What Lies Ahead for RTI?

    As outlined above, the reader will note how RTI is a multifaceted and sophisticated framework for implementing interventions that are appropriate given individual student needs. RTI is one way for schools to try and meet the accountability requirements stipulated under NCLB. It might even be a way for schools to extend and deepen the levels of accountability by specifying when, for whom, and how to incorporate both scientifically based curriculum and high-quality teaching within a model for intervention (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008). RTI guides educators as they think about how to identify struggling students and intervene at various levels (tiers) of intensity. It provides a framework for evaluating whether curric­ula or methods are effective, discourages giving up on a child after one intervention, and encourages schools to move toward more intense interventions as needed. RTI requires that these factors, external to the child, be evaluated prior to assuming that a struggling child has an intrinsic learning deficit.

    Unfortunately, because examples of scientifically based curricula are lacking, and schools do not have the luxury of being able to conduct detailed observations of teachers in the manner that is proposed in EBPR for RTI, RTI is vulnerable to premature blame and criticism. As such, the RTI model may be critiqued for failing to follow through on its promise before its full potential is understood and realized. The work of researchers conducting rigorous studies that provide clear evidence in support of appropriate interventions as in EBPR for RTI is a first step in the right direction. This body of work should be complemented by practitioner-friendly materials such as RTI: A Practical Guide, so that teachers can apply the curricula and interventions that are most effective.

    Evaluating RTI: A Practical Guide and EBRP for RTI Resources

    To stave off the possibility of poor implementation of RTI, educators will need to turn to a number of resources to help them understand what to expect and how to maximize the probability of success. Both of the books reviewed in this article are true to their titles and, even with the shortcomings I identify here, have the potential to provide the needed guidance. RTI: A Practical Guide is what it says it is—a practical guide—and EBRP for RTI reviews research that is relevant to RTI. Bender and Shores’s practical book targets both general and special education teachers and provides a broad application of the RTI model that includes behavioral as well as learning issues. They elegantly clarify the difference between the implementation of RTI as a problem-solving process and a standard protocol. This stands in contrast to EBRP for RTI, which includes discrete chapters by multiple authors on different studies that have implications for RTI. While the books seem to serve different purposes and audiences, they may be used together as complementary volumes: EBRP for RTI for establishing some evidence and justification for adopting RTI and RTI: A Practical Guide for providing the nuts and bolts of implementation in a classroom setting.

    EBRP for RTI
    represents a very limited perspective by focusing on the early intervention reading research. It provides the research to support what many schools are already doing, particularly for the early grades, but does not provide much to guide the use of RTI in late elementary grades. The major shortcoming of RTI: A Practical Guide may be that it oversimplifies RTI without giving sufficient attention to the potential pitfalls. The truly informed reader will supplement reading these books with the increasing number of journal articles and online resources available on the topic of RTI (for example, Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).

    The Potential of RTI


    RTI is a framework designed to change the way we think about supporting students’ learning. It is designed to increase access to quality education, particularly for students who might not otherwise receive needed services. And it is a definite disruption of the status quo in that it requires general education teachers to monitor students’ progress and provide classroom-level interventions when students are not making adequate progress. Furthermore, it requires special education teachers to provide services to students who have not been formally diagnosed with a disability, though it fails to explicitly assign responsibility for providing supplementary educational services to students. As a result, schools are still experimenting with different ways to provide supplementary education services to students, and in their efforts to take NCLB and RTI seriously, many schools are turning to independent service providers to implement afterschool programs that have not been validated as effective.

    As a classroom teacher during the bilingual education movement, I experienced firsthand the frustration of changing educational models. The bilingual education movement provided entire populations of students who did not understand English with access to educational content. But as an educator who has witnessed the demise of bilingual education, I cringe when I see the educational pendulum swing forcefully toward a new idea, as I anticipate the pendulum’s return and the consequences for teachers and students. I recall how bilingual education was embraced, funded, and implemented, complete with full programming and personnel in the early stages of its existence, but was later abandoned. The reasons for its dissolution are many; importantly, the research community never came to consensus about who qualified as bilingual and what constituted bilingual education, making it difficult to know who should be served.1 Even more problematic was the lack of consensus on the most effective ways to improve outcomes for bilingual students, leading to a variety of approaches to implementation, from pull-out English as a Second Language services to dual-immersion programs. Ultimately, because the outcomes for students in bilingual programs were disappointing, bilingual education was abolished in several key states, including California, Arizona, and Massachusetts. As a teacher, it seemed to me as if bilingual education was there one moment and gone the next.

    RTI seems to provide a response for many of the most pressing questions faced by schools today, including: How can children who are at risk for reading disabilities be identified early? What is the best program for teaching reading to a particular child? How do we know if a program is successful? How do we know if a student has a learning disability? The proliferation of content in the form of journal articles, publications, and professional development opportunities on topics relevant to RTI suggests that RTI is taking center stage as a possible solution to the many problems that have been exposed in America’s public education system. Most of the literature on RTI appears to favor its adoption; however, it has not been scientifically validated as an effective framework. In the absence of proper, thoughtful implementation, the RTI framework is in danger of becoming another passing movement in educational policy. It is way too early to claim that there is a debate about whether RTI should be implemented or not. RTI is in its infancy, and there is much research and evaluation that must be done before we can effectively judge its success.

    Although neither of the two books reviewed here really offer reasons not to adopt RTI, a few authors have advised caution regarding RTI (Allington & Walmsley, 2007; McCormack & Paratore, 2003). Indeed, while RTI is a recommended practice, no new federal funds have been earmarked to support it, nor has there been specific language added to legislation that identifies who is responsible for implementing and monitoring RTI in the schools. There has simply been an option to reallocate special education funds. In the absence of additional funding or personnel, programs may not reach their full potential. These important points are not addressed sufficiently by either EBRP for RTI or RTI: A Practical Guide.

    The excitement surrounding RTI reminds me of some aspects of the launch of bilingual education. There is much work yet to be done to define the various components of RTI, including establishing criteria for identifying the students who are not demonstrating a response to intervention, the interventions they require, and who should be providing the intervention. We cannot predict what will happen with RTI. It may take hold and proceed successfully, as I hope it will, or it may not. But we would be wise to proceed in a purposeful fashion to avoid the pitfalls that have hindered earlier programs. Will RTI reach a point where it becomes too unwieldy, too expensive, or not worth the investment in time, energy, and human resources? Only time will tell. However, if research can provide the evidence to scientifically validate curricula and if teachers are provided the necessary training and support to ensure their success as implementers of RTI, perhaps our hopes for this promising approach will be realized.

    Jennifer F. Samson

    Note

    1. The following terms have been used to refer to bilingual populations: limited English proficient (LEP), English as a Second Language (ESL), English-language learner (ELL).

    References

    Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (Eds.). (2007). No quick fix, the RTI edition: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York: International Reading Association & Teachers College Press.

    Cummings, K., Atkins, T., Allison, R., & Cole, C. (2008). Response to intervention: Investigating the new role of special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 24–31.

    Donovan, S. M., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Fletcher, J., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304–331.

    Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004). Federal Register 71, pp. 46539–46845. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html

    Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.nrcld.org/rti_manual/index.html

    Office of Special Education Programs. (2001). Learning disabilities summit: Building a foundation for the future. Retrieved November, 10, 2008, from http://ldsummit.air.org

    McCormack, R. L., & Paratore, J. R. (2003). After early intervention, then what? Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.

    National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

    President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Guidance for the Reading First program. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.pdf

    U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). Public law 107-110. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107–110.pdf

    Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146.
  2. Share

    Spring 2009 Issue

    Abstracts

    Indigenous Knowledges and the Story of the Bean
    Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy and Emma Maughan
    Latino Students’ Transitions to College
    A Social and Intercultural Capital Perspective
    Anne-Marie Nuñez
    Identity Development and Mentoring in Doctoral Education
    Leigh A. Hall and Leslie D. Burns
    Symposium: Education and Violent Political Conflict
    Introduction
    Symposium: Identity versus Peace
    Identity Wins
    Zvi Bekerman
    Symposium: Citizenship Competencies in the Midst of a Violent Political Conflict
    The Colombian Educational Response
    Enrique Chaux
    Symposium: War News Radio
    Conflict Education through Student Journalism
    Emily Hager
    Symposium: The Other Side of the Story
    Israeli and Palestinian Teachers Write a History Textbook Together
    Shoshana Steinberg and Dan Bar-On
    Symposium: Curriculum and Civil Society in Afghanistan
    Adele Jones
    Symposium: Educational Reconstruction “By the Dawn’s Early Light”
    Violent Political Conflict and American Overseas Education Reform
    Noah W. Sobe
    Symposium: The Social (and Economic) Implications of Being an Educated Woman in Iran
    Mitra Shavarini
    Symposium: Interview with Jacques Bwira Hope Primary School Kampala, Uganda
    The Editors

    Book Notes

    So Much Reform, So Little Change
    by Charles M. Payne

    Corridor Cultures
    by Maryann Dickar

    In a Reading State of Mind
    by Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, and Diane Lapp