Talk:Response to Intervention

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Education Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Response to Intervention is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Hi,

Someone changed the categories for this article to Childhood Psychiatric disorders and Special education. I agree with the Special Education category. I don't understand why the Childhood Psychiatric disorder category should be applied, nor do I understand why the Education and Learning disability categories are not appropriate.

Can you give me some more information about the thinking behind the changes?

Here is a summary of why I inserted the categories as I did:

+ RTI is an academic intervention method (hence the education category)

+ Designed to provide early intervention for all children having difficulty (the assumption is that they have not been diagnosed with a LD)

+ At the end of which some children are identified as having a learning disability and referred for special education (hence the LD category and special education category)

Best,

Rosmoran 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The section I added, Relationship between RTI and IDEA was removed without explanation. The section is certainly relevant and properly cited. Please discuss any issues before editing. Yorktown1781 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in some section headings, lists and done some general cleanup. I have used RTI instead of RtI throughout except in the intro to make it a bit clearer in the standard font. SuW (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the use of Roman numerals for Tiers I, II and II to use Tiers 1, 2, 3. I don't know what the real world uses but it should be consistent. SuW (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems biased in favor of RTI, for there are many groups that do not agree with how it has been implemented. A section about these critques is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.58.237 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the information I put in today will help present a more balanced picture. It was amazing to find this type of bias in favor of RTI in Wikipedia, so I took some time today to point out a few of the dozens of publications opposed to it for SLD identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBradfordHale (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about Sudbury School at the end seems inappropriate. That has nothing specifically to do with RTI. The Sudbury approach is drastically different from almost everything else in education, so to cite it as an argument against RtI is misleading. I thought the article was pretty objective - if there are specific criticisms, could you spell them out with citations? Mary Lynne, Ohio 72.49.184.74 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I agree with the discussant's comment below: while interesting and certainly important, the section on Sudbury School of thought is misplaced here under the topic of RtI. RtI is not really a philosophy or school of thought about the social aims or consequences of public schooling. RtI is, rather, a pragmatic response to empirical evidence about how best to identify and assist students of "normal" ability who fail to learn. The overarching argument for RtI, supported by strong empirical evidence, is that learning disabilities are better understood as an instructional rather than a psychometric problem. I am really impressed with remainder of this RtI page and hope that it continues to grow! 70.138.86.83 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to all, from John in Houston 70.138.86.83 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, I absolutely agree with you about the Sudbury School issue. Anyone can observe their pedagogical philosophy right now and see the difference. It has nothing to do with RTI, although its environment and conditions may be compatible with many principles specified in RTI. Unless someone has an explicit reference to this in the pedagogical and educational framework of the persons that established Sudbury, it would not be erroneous to consider that. True Skepticism (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the page has been re-organized according to standard formatting. The preceding comment was slightly edited to account for the new ordering.

Hi, I added a section "Relationship between IDEA and RTI".
Yorktown1781 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The section I added, Relationship between RTI and IDEA was removed without explanation. The section is certainly relevant and properly cited. Please discuss any issues before editing. Yorktown1781 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intentional. I was trying to undo an old edit unrelated to your addition, and must've performed a full revert, instead. I have no position on the text. Dancter (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the following excerpt from the articles, placed in bold (What follows is an opinion from a person with 30 years experience in the public school system:

This person needs to be named and their credentials made explicit. 30 years in the public school system could mean anything from being a county superintendent to being a very, very poor student. Someone needs to either establish the person's qualifications (or lack thereof) or risk having this section omitted.

INTERNwiki (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section on the criticism of RTI seems flawed: However, it should be noted that public schools tend to receive more federal and state dollars the more students they identify as qualifying for special education. That said, RTI would if anything delay receipt of funding at the school level. Therefore the above criticism may stem from misinformation.

Wouldn't this suggest that federal and state governments have an economic incentive to promote RTI in ways that validate the prior points, and therefore the the comment that this criticism "may stem from misinformation" represents both bias and flawed logic. Mrviles (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I have added some more information regarding each of the three tiers.The information that I added was based on research and came from the Connecticut State Department of Education website.KDG555 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see mention of IQ testing in the article text. I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this article needs some major major work! I've started a couple big revisions, which have involved cutting out lots of words. Much more needs to be done, though...and I'll be checking to see if the cut material can be integrated elsewhere (as it was, there was way too much in the introduction). Tim D (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked through a few overhauls so far (although there's still more to be done), but if you look at the history, it's hard to see what specific changes were made. If anyone wants to discuss any issues, please let me know! Tim D (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the intro paragraphs because the source was from a single person and not peer-reviewed. It was published under a NFP advocacy and awareness group. Until peer-reviewed evidence can be located, that claim deserves to be postponed from publishing, especially in the introductory paragraphs where factual and/or prominently recognized information is most necessary. True Skepticism (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Response to intervention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.cssponline.org/attachments/GreshamCommuniqueRTI.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AGorski28 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Colleenrushnak, Degenag, Passionforbaking.

— Assignment last updated by Kieramalley (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]