This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Scruggs, T. E. Articles by Mastropieri, M. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Response to "Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention"

George Mason University, tscruggs{at}gmu.edu

Margo A. Mastropieri

George Mason University

Batsche, Kavale, and Kovaleski (this issue) have done an outstanding job of summarizing arguments for and against the use of response-to-intervention (RTI) procedures for identifying learning disabilities. In this response, we raise issues relevant to the concept of learning disabilities, the nature of problems associated with standard discrepancy-based identification procedures, and how RTI will ultimately be operationalized across a variety of academic domains. We express cautious optimism that RTI procedures will continue to be developed carefully and methodically and will ultimately lead to better methods for identifying and treating learning disabilities.

Assessment for Effective Intervention, Vol. 32, No. 1, 62-64 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/15345084060320010901


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?