Search

A recent survey on implementation of Response to Instruction/Intervention (RTI) found 94% of participating schools implementing some level of RTI ("Global Scholar," 2011). Therefore, it is logical to assume that most educators have heard about the concepts at the heart of RTI, even though specific iterations and names of the frameworks may differ from place to place. They may know about multiple "tiers" of instruction and intervention, rooted in high-quality core instruction with sound assessment and data based decision making that informs instruction. The premise of this article is that a narrow focus on developing high quality RTI implementation within one's own immediate purview is necessary but insufficient. Professionals working directly with students need to assist in making RTI the comprehensive, system wide framework it is meant to be. They need to think and act beyond developing pockets of excellence in their own venues and work toward having a greater impact on the overall success of RTI. Five focal points are discussed as a blueprint for this work: (1) functioning as a leader; (2) working toward creating critical mass; (3) focusing on the intent of RTI; (4) challenging myths; and (5) cultivating collaborations. (Contains 1 table.)

This article discusses the Content Literacy Curriculum (CLC) as a framework for conceptualizing and implementing Response to Intervention (RTI) at the secondary level. It is our belief that the CLC offers an excellent RTI implementation framework for secondary schools interested in addressing literacy in the context of improved academic achievement as a schoolwide effort. CLC implementation can be accomplished within a general problem-solving approach to RTI. However, a few components may need amplification for the CLC to become a comprehensive RTI system: Universal screening must address all the important aspects of literacy, including writing; schools must develop a broader approach to progress monitoring; schools must pay closer attention to the scope and function of decision-making teams; and, although fluid movement across levels has always been an important component of the CLC, for RTI to work, greater attention to this aspect is needed. (Contains 4 figures.)

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent The ASHA Leader articles, there is international momentum to change specific language impairment to developmental language disorder. Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions: Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the developmental language disorder label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]