# data[].attributes.headline
(L. Blau, 5 Surefire Strategies for Developing Reading Fluency, 2000).

# data[].attributes.subject
(L. Blau, 5 Surefire Strategies for Developing Reading Fluency, 2000).

# data[].attributes.body
"When fluent readers read aloud, the text flows as if strung together like pearls on a necklace, rather than sounding halting and choppy."

# data[].attributes.headline
(M. Wolf, New Research on an Old Problem: A Brief History of Fluency)

# data[].attributes.subject
(M. Wolf, New Research on an Old Problem: A Brief History of Fluency)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These resources cover the basics of fluency, how to measure student success, and ways to improve each student's fluency skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oral Reading Fluency Passage Generator | Teacher Resources | Intervention Central

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Intervention Central offers free teacher resources including the oral reading fluency passages generator for educators and classroom leaders to use in classroom management

# data[].attributes.body
"To implement RTI effectively, schools must develop a specialized set of tools and competencies, including a structured format for problem-solving, knowledge of a range of scientifically based interventions that address common reasons for school failure, and the ability to use various methods of assessment to monitor student progress in academic and behavioral areas."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do schools put RTI into practice? To implement RTI effectively, schools must develop a specialized set of tools and competencies, including a structured format for problem-solving, knowledge of a range of scientifically based interventions that address common reasons for school failure, and the ability to use various methods of assessment to monitor student progress in academic and behavioral areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
(IES Practice Guide, Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades, 2009).

# data[].attributes.subject
(IES Practice Guide, Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades, 2009).

# data[].attributes.body
"Our goal is to provide evidence-based suggestions for implementing multi-tier interventions that are feasible and based on evidence from rigorous research."

# data[].attributes.headline
(WWC Intervention Report, Fluency Formula, 2007).

# data[].attributes.subject
(WWC Intervention Report, Fluency Formula, 2007).

# data[].attributes.body
"Fluency Formula™ is a supplemental curriculum designed to promote reading fluency for first- through sixth-grade students."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our library provides teachers with effective, research-based classroom strategies to help build and strengthen literacy skills in phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
(R. Brown-Chidsey, No More "Waiting to Fail", 2009).

# data[].attributes.subject
(R. Brown-Chidsey, No More "Waiting to Fail", 2009).

# data[].attributes.body
"Response to Intervention enables schools to identify the kinds of support struggling students need— and provide that support when it's needed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Edited by Marge Scherer and the Educational Leadership Staff

by Rachel Brown-Chidsey

Response to Intervention enables schools to identify the kinds of support struggling students need- and provide that support when it's needed.

Nearly 35 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 as part of the nation's evolving commitment to accommodate the needs of all children in public schools. Soon after the passage of this historic legislation, policymakers became concerned about two trends. First, the number of students identified with learning disabilities grew much more quickly and reached much higher levels than expected. Second, the percentages of black and other racial minority students who were found eligible for special education services were much higher than the percentages of racial minorities in the U.S. population. Both of these trends have continued, and accumulating evidence indicates that special education services have not been as effective as possible (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Because of these concerns, many educators and policymakers have suggested that we need alternative methods for determining students' eligibility for special education services.

One alternative approach-Response to Intervention (RTI)-has received increased attention since its inclusion in the most recent reauthorization of federal special education law. The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act states that schools will no longer be required to determine whether a student has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability, the traditional method of identifying learning disabilities. Instead, schools are allowed to use evidence of a student's failure to respond to instructional interventions as part of the data documenting the presence of a specific learning disability.

The Prevention Model

The history of special education leading to RTI is a story of more and more prevention-focused instructional practices. Prevention-based practices have been used in other disciplines for many years. For example, immunizations are required for almost all children before school entry because the population reaps general health benefits from the prevention of infectious diseases (Fairbanks & Wiese, 1998).

The basic prevention model includes three types of activities: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary prevention includes steps taken to stop a certain outcome from happening at all (for example, healthy eating and regular exercise to prevent type 2 diabetes). Secondary prevention includes steps taken to address the problem at the first sign of symptoms (for example, using dietary and exercise changes to treat type 2 diabetes). Tertiary prevention is actions taken after the problem has already surfaced. At this stage, the prevention steps include methods to reduce the effects of the problem (for example, using insulin for lifelong management of diabetes). When this prevention model is applied to education, it manifests itself as RTI. Many studies have shown that students benefit when prevention practices are used in schools (Foorman, 2003).

The Three Tiers of RTI

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a systematic method for instruction and assessment of students. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the three RTI levels of intervention to support students with varying instructional needs. Tier 1 includes universal instruction and assessment of all students-in other words, the general education curriculum. Schools need to ensure that this instruction and assessment are research based and effective in helping students gain academic proficiency. Success at Tier 1 is defined as the student demonstrating at least the levels of knowledge and skill expected for his or her age and grade.

Figure 1. Levels of Response to Intervention

Tier 2 includes selected instructional activities and assessments for students who have not achieved at the expected level while participating in Tier 1. An example of Tier 2 intervention is providing 30 minutes a day of additional reading or math instruction to 1st grade students who have not met grade-level benchmarks. Students receiving Tier 2 support are monitored weekly to learn whether their skills are improving. If their assessment data indicate progress, the students gradually receive less support until they are able to succeed within the general education (Tier 1) program. If they do not make progress after a specified period of Tier 2 instruction, the school either adjusts the students' Tier 2 instruction or refers them to Tier 3.

Only at Tier 3 does the school take steps to determine whether a student has a disability that requires special education. At this stage, the school conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the student's skills, including the data obtained in Tiers 1 and 2, to determine why a student's performance is significantly different from that of other students of his or her age and grade and to decide what additional instructional supports the student needs.

Why Is RTI Important?

RTI helps ensure that all students have equal educational opportunity. RTI provides mechanisms by which students can receive supplementary instruction without the stigmatizing effects of a disability label. Under prior special education laws, students had to show a deficit (such as mental retardation or a specific learning disability) to qualify for specialized instruction. The process to become eligible for special education services under the older laws was time-consuming and often meant that a student must "wait to fail" before receiving additional instructional support. Under RTI, schools must not only ensure that they are providing scientifically based instruction in the general education program, but also provide intervention to students not succeeding in the general education program before considering them for special education placement.

Such a significant shift in policy will take time to implement and evaluate. However, outcomes from schools that have practiced RTI for a number of years have shown that it raises education attainment of students in general and reduces the number of students who need special education (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005). For example, Speece, Case, and Molloy (2003) found that the earlier the intervention, the better the outcomes for students identified as being at risk for reading problems. Both Tilly (2003) and O'Connor (2003) found that RTI methods used over time reduced total special education placements and improved academic outcomes for students at risk.

RTI in Action

One way to see the benefits of RTI is through examples of students who received Tier 2 and 3 interventions. Consider the following two stories.

Helping an At-Risk Student Catch Up

Tim lived with both his parents and a younger sister in a northeastern U.S. town. When Tim was an infant and toddler, he spent his day at home with his mom. At age 3, he was enrolled in a private preschool that focused on allowing students to explore and learn from self-directed inquiry. Tim began half-day kindergarten in the same town where he had attended preschool. His teacher reported that he made good progress but was very shy and quiet in group settings.

During the summer between kindergarten and 1st grade, Tim's family moved to a new town in a different school district. Tim enrolled in 1st grade; most of his classmates had attended the local district's full-day kindergarten program. The district used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to measure students' literacy development (Good & Kaminski, 2002). Tim's scores on the fall DIBELS benchmarks showed that he lagged behind other 1st graders.

Because Tim's DIBELS scores revealed that he was at high risk of reading problems, he was immediately placed at Tier 2 of his school's RTI program. Tim participated in the evidence-based reading program Early Reading Intervention, a small-group intervention with three or four students in a group. Tim's progress was monitored using winter and spring DIBELS benchmarking assessments; these data showed that once he began participating in the program, he started to develop word-attack skills.

Tim made excellent progress and met the winter DIBELS goals. As a result of the strong progress he made when participating in Early Reading Intervention five days a week, his schedule was changed to include two days of Tier 2 instruction each week. Tim continued to make good progress; he was eventually transitioned out of Tier 2 instruction and participated in Tier 1 instruction only.

Tim's story shows how early intervention can prevent later reading problems. Tim began 1st grade at risk of reading failure and in danger of being identified as learning disabled; he ended the year reading at the level expected for 1st graders. Coordinated and systematic intervention and assessment activities made a profound difference in this student's school success.

Providing Intervention for a Student with Learning Disabilities

Martha attended a half-day preschool program when she was 3 and 4 years old. When she was screened with the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) at the beginning of kindergarten, she scored lower than average in phonemic awareness and letter naming. As a result, her kindergarten teacher placed her in daily small-group lessons (Tier 2 intervention) that focused on developing these skills. Martha's language development showed progress by the end of kindergarten, but her skills were still in the low-average range compared with those of her classmates.

Martha's 1st grade teacher used the Open Court Reading program to provide Tier 1 instruction to all students. The school screened students at the start of the school year with the DIBELS, and Martha's scores indicated that she remained at risk for reading difficulties. For this reason, Martha participated in Tier 2 interventions in 1st grade. In addition to whole-class instruction, she attended daily 30-minute smallgroup reading sessions using the Reading Mastery program. These sessions were led by a special education teacher who worked with both general and special education students. To determine whether the extra lessons were helping, students in Martha's group completed weekly DIBELS measures of nonsense word fluency. Martha's classroom teacher and the special education teacher communicated regularly about Martha's lessons so that her Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction would be complementary.

By November of 1st grade, Martha showed sufficient gains in her reading skills to allow her to discontinue smallgroup lessons. But when all students in Martha's school participated in midyear screening assessments that January, Martha's scores revealed that she was struggling again. Her teachers decided to resume the small-group intervention. Martha's progress in reading during February and March was slower than in the fall, and she gained an average of less than one word per week on oral reading fluency measures. Her limited progress, despite the use of well-validated Tier 1 and Tier 2 reading interventions, led her teachers to request a Tier 3 comprehensive evaluation.

The school psychologist reviewed all Martha's kindergarten and 1st grade reading data. These data suggested that Martha was able to learn the sound-symbol correspondence needed for reading, but that she read words much more slowly than typical 1st graders. The psychologist administered tests of memory and processing speed to test the hypothesis that Martha's reading difficulties were related to the speed with which she decoded and understood words. Using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Awareness (CTOPA) as well as the Children's Memory Scale (CMS), the psychologist found that Martha's scores on measures of rapid automatic naming were well below average.

The evaluation findings were presented at a special education team meeting to discuss whether Martha was eligible for special education services. The data collected at Tiers 1, 2, and 3 all converged to suggest that Martha's reading difficulties were the result of a learning disability. The team, consisting of Martha's parents, teachers, and school specialists, developed an individualized education program (IEP) for Martha that included two major components: individualized reading lessons for 60 minutes each day, replacing both the whole-class and small-group lessons she attended; and additional time for completing all standardized, timed assessments so that her slower reading speed would not compromise her opportunity to demonstrate her learning.

Martha's story shows how RTI methods can be important for students who have disabilities. She was provided with high-quality, research-based reading interventions from the start of her schooling. Her progress was closely monitored as she received Tier 1 and 2 instruction, and by the time she was placed in Tier 3 and found eligible for special education services, her teachers had a thorough understanding of how to give her the additional support she needed to succeed in school.

Timely Support for All Students

Response to Intervention is a databased, systematic procedure that supports equitable educational access for all students. RTI provides school personnel with ways of knowing which students are at risk and whether efforts to help these students are working. RTI begins by ensuring that the general education classroom is providing effective instruction and assessment for all students. RTI then offers a way to bridge gaps between general and special education services by providing scientifically based interventions quickly and efficiently for all students who need such support, before going through a lengthy process to determine eligibility for special education.

RTI is a general education initiative and policy that requires the active participation of all general educators. The most effective RTI solutions include collaborative work by general and special educators to provide effective instruction for students as soon as they need it. The result? Greater success for all students and fewer students placed in special education.

References

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to Intervention: Principles and methods for effective practice. New York: Guilford.

Fairbanks, J., & Wiese, W. H. (1998). The public health primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Foorman, B. R. (2003). Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore: York Press.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-297.

O'Connor, R. (2003, December). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Available: www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/oconnor/index.html

Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18, 147-156.

Tilly, W. D., III. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention? Heartland Area Education Agency's evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Available: www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003/tilly/index.html

Originally published in the October 2007 issue of Educational Leadership, 65(2), pp. 40-46.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edited by Marge Scherer and the Educational Leadership Staff by Rachel Brown-Chidsey Response to Intervention enables schools to identify the kinds of support struggling students need- and provide that support when it's needed. Nearly 35 years ago, the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
(K. Tankersley, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12, 2005).

# data[].attributes.subject
(K. Tankersley, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12, 2005).

# data[].attributes.body
"Fluency is the ability to read a text accurately, smoothly, and quickly, with expression, proper phrasing, and good comprehension."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifth grade has turned into a difficult year for Jonah. He is a bright student, but he has difficulty reading. Although he can accurately sound out the words he encounters, he plods along word-by-word, often hesitating at challenging vocabulary. His oral reading shows little attention to punctuation and phrasing, and it lacks expression and enthusiasm. Jonah can, however, understand material read to him. His difficulty seems to lie somewhere on the path from decoding to comprehension-in reading fluency.

Since the publication of the National Reading Panel report (2000) and other recent scholarly reviews of scientific research (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003), reading fluency has taken a front seat in discussions about student reading success and effective instruction in reading. Yet programs and materials addressing reading instruction and teacher training seldom tackle reading fluency (Rasinski & Zutell, 1996). This lack may be due to the fact that fluency has long been associated with oral reading, a form of reading traditionally viewed as having little importance in learning to read (Gibson & Levin, 1975; Smith, 2002).

Three Dimensions of Reading Fluency

Defining reading fluency may help clarify the issue. Successful reading requires readers to process the text (the surface level of reading) and comprehend the text (the deeper meaning). Reading fluency refers to the reader's ability to develop control over surface-level text processing so that he or she can focus on understanding the deeper levels of meaning embedded in the text.

Reading fluency has three important dimensions that build a bridge to comprehension. The first dimension is accuracy in word decoding. Readers must be able to sound out the words in a text with minimal errors. In terms of skills, this dimension refers to phonics and other strategies for decoding words. The second dimension is automatic processing. Readers need to expend as little mental effort as possible in the decoding aspect of reading so that they can use their finite cognitive resources for meaning making (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). The third dimension is what linguists call prosodic reading (Schreiber, 1980, 1991; Schreiber & Read, 1980). The reader must parse the text into syntactically and semantically appropriate units. If readers read quickly and accurately but with no expression in their voices, if they place equal emphasis on every word and have no sense of phrasing, and if they ignore most punctuation, blowing through periods and other markers that indicate pauses, then it is unlikely that they will fully understand the text.

Assessing Reading Fluency

Teachers can easily assess each of the three dimensions of reading fluency. To determine proficiency in decoding connected text, calculate the percentage of words a reader can accurately decode on grade-level material. An accuracy level of 90-95 percent is usually considered adequate. Thus, a 3rd grader who is progressing normally in decoding accuracy should be able to read a 100-word text written at a 3rd grade level with no more than 10 uncorrected decoding errors. More than 10 uncorrected errors per 100 words indicates that decoding is a concern, one that requires additional instruction and practice.

Teachers can normally assess automaticity in decoding by looking at the student's reading rate. Reading rates increase as students mature, so the target reading rate increases as students move through school. An easy method for determining reading rate, and thus automaticity, involves having students orally read a grade-level passage for 60 seconds and then calculating the number of words read correctly (corrected errors count as words read correctly) (Deno, 1985). Compare students' scores with target rates (oral fluency norms) for each grade level (Rasinski, 2003). Readers who fall 20-30 percent below the target rate will normally require additional instruction.

The best way to assess prosodic reading is to listen to a student read a grade-level passage and to then judge the quality of the reading using a rubric that scores a student on the elements of expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace (see fig. 1, p. 49). Students who score poorly may be considered at risk in this dimension of reading fluency.
Figure 1. Multidimensional Fluency Scale
Figure 1. Multidimensional Fluency Scale

By having students read one or two grade-level passages for one minute each, teachers can get a quick sense of their students' level of decoding accuracy, automaticity, and prosodic reading. Although such quick assessments may not be definitive, they do provide teachers and school administrators with a method for screening new students, tracking students' ongoing progress in the various dimensions of reading fluency, and identifying the students who may require additional assessment and instruction.

Teaching Reading Fluency

Instruction in reading fluency depends on the area in which students require the most help. Students with difficulties in accuracy require instruction in learning how to decode words. Although teachers are familiar with this kind of instruction, which develops skills in phonics and decoding, they may not be as familiar with methods for developing students' strength in automaticity and prosodic reading.

In my own instructional efforts to develop automaticity and prosodic reading, I use assisted readings and repeated readings, two methods that research has shown to improve reading fluency (Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003). Students need to hear what fluent reading sounds like and how fluent readers interpret text with their voices.

Hearing fluent reading, however, is not the same as being a fluent reader. Fortunately, assisted readings can help. After reading a passage aloud to students, I ask them to follow along with me, first silently and then aloud, as a group. Sometimes I ask students to orally read a passage with a partner who is at the same reading level. At other times, I ask more fluent readers to read with students who are having difficulty with reading (Eldredge & Quinn, 1988; Topping, 1987a, 1987b, 1995) or I have students silently read while listening to a fluent rendering of the passage on tape (Carbo, 1978; Pluck, 1995). Such practices constitute a powerful strategy for improving fluency and comprehension.

Developing fluency in reading requires practice; this is where the method of repeated readings comes in (Samuels, 1979). Research indicates that repeated readings lead not only to improvement in reading the passage but also to improvement in decoding, reading rate, prosodic reading, and comprehension of passages that the reader has not previously seen (Dowhower, 1994; Koskinen & Blum, 1986; Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000).

Passages meant to be read aloud as a performance-poetry, for example, or scripts, speeches, monologues, dialogues, jokes, and riddles-are perfect texts for developing fluency. I see many teachers converting their classrooms into poetry cafés and readers' theater festivals on Friday afternoons to give students the opportunity to perform the assigned texts that they have diligently practiced during the week.

The teacher plays a key role in developing prosodic reading skills by modeling prosodic reading in classroom read-aloud sessions and then discussing the specific oral interpretation that he or she chose. Coaching provides another opportunity for developing these skills by making students aware of their own interpretation of the text and moving readers toward deeper levels of interpretation and meaning.

Here are some comments I have heard teachers make while coaching students in oral interpretation.

"You got all the words right, Thomas, but you read too fast. It was hard for me to follow what you were trying to tell me."

"Eliza, the way you made each character sound different in this dialogue was fantastic. It was easy and fun to listen to these characters arguing."

"I really like how you paused between sentences. This gave me a chance to think about the author's message. Now think about finding places to pause for just a second more inside longer sentences."

"I loved how you made your voice strong and loud in this section. It really told me that this section of the passage was important."

"Try slowing down here and making your voice a bit softer. Remember, you're trying to tell me about something mysterious. Tell the story with your voice as well as with the words."

As assisted and repeated reading, coupled with coaching, become part of the classroom routine, teachers can track changes in students' accuracy, reading rate, and prosodic reading. Jonah, our struggling 5th grade reader, originally read a 4th grade-level passage at 60 words correct per minute and a 5th grade-level passage at 52 words correct per minute. A 5th grader, however, should be reading approximately 100-125 words correct per minute during the first half of the school year. After just two months of working in small groups with a reading teacher for three 40-minute sessions each week, Jonah's reading rate on 5th grade-level passages increased to 84 words correct per minute. His accuracy, prosodic reading, and comprehension improved as well.

Several instructional routines for developing reading fluency show promise for improving reading in all readers. Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction (Stahl & Heubach, in press) has students engage in modeled, repeated, and assisted reading of passages from basal readers. The Fluency Development Lesson (Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994) uses poetry, monologues, dialogues, speeches, and other performance texts to promote reading fluency. Fast Start (Rasinski, 1995; Stevenson, 2002) promotes early reading fluency through parental involvement.

Confusing Fast with Fluent

The new focus on reading fluency has great potential for improving the reading achievement of all students, particularly those who have not met with great success in reading. I am, however, concerned about how some schools define reading fluency and how some teachers teach it. In some schools, where improvement of the reading rate has become the chief goal of fluency instruction, teachers admonish students to "pick up the pace," regularly time them on their reading to encourage them to beat their previous scores, and engage students in daily reading exercises that emphasize speed over meaning.

This is a corruption of the concept of reading fluency. If we emphasize speed at the expense of prosodic and meaningful reading, we will end up with fast readers who understand little of what they have read. Fluency instruction leads to impressive gains when it provides regular opportunities for expressive reading through assisted and repeated readings coupled with coaching; it doesn't require explicit reference to reading for speed. Students' reading rates will improve as they become naturally more efficient and confident in their ability to decode words.

Fluency Into the Future

Research (Pinnell et al., 1995) suggests that reading fluency is a crucial factor among 4th grade students, but it can also be an important issue beyond the elementary grades. I recently worked with a group of colleagues from Kent State University to examine the fluency of high school students in an urban setting. We found that variations in the reading fluency of these students accounted for approximately 30 percent of the variance in their performance on Ohio's High School Graduation Test. Clearly, this finding suggests that fluency may be an issue that goes well into the high school years, especially among students from less advantaged backgrounds.

If teachers and school leaders are truly committed to leaving no child behind in reading, then they must actively pursue the goal of reading fluency in elementary and middle school classrooms. Existing scientific research on reading fluency indicates that it is an important factor in reading education and thus should be part of any comprehensive and effective reading curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifth grade has turned into a difficult year for Jonah. He is a bright student, but he has difficulty reading. Although he can accurately sound out the words he encounters, he plods along word-by-word, often hesitating at challenging vocabulary. His oral reading shows little attention to punctuation

# data[].attributes.body
Implementing RTI in classroom and building with the focus of fluency.

# data[].attributes.body
How do you track student progress with reading fluency?

# data[].attributes.body
FLUENCY PASSAGES

# data[].attributes.headline
(M. Appelbaum, personal communication, 2009).

# data[].attributes.subject
(M. Appelbaum, personal communication, 2009).

# data[].attributes.body
"It needs to be simplified so that everyone understands the process."

# data[].attributes.body
I PLAN TO STUDY the RTI process in my building BECAUSE I WANT TO FIND OUT the district policy given from the administrators TO SHOW the stages of the RTI process that are implemented in this building SO THAT I MAY BETTER UNDERSTAND the sequence of the stages for our at risk students.

# data[].attributes.body
What we are doing in our building to close the gap with struggling students?

# data[].attributes.headline
A website loaded with useful information with all around RTI/data
collection/interventions, etc. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A website loaded with useful information with all around RTI/data
collection/interventions, etc. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Intervention Central provides teachers, schools and districts with free resources to help struggling learners and implement Response to Intervention and attain the Common Core State Standards.

[24 April 2017] Class Pass: Escape Breaks. The Class Pass intervention reduces disruptive behavior by allowing the student to use a limited number of passes to take brief work breaks to engage in preferred activities. Find out more!

[7 Sept 2016] Wise Feedback. When offered constructive criticism, students can become defensive and shut down. Instead, teachers can use 'wise feedback' to .ensure that their well-intentioned feedback is accepted and acted upon.

[7 Sept 2016] School-Home Note. Managing classroom behaviors is not always easy. A simple strategy that enlists both school and home to improve motivation and behavior is the school-home note.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Response to Intervention | RTI | RTI Resources | Intervention Central

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Intervention Central provides teachers, schools and districts with free resources to help struggling learners and implement Response to Intervention and attain the Common Core State Standards. [24 April 2017] Class Pass: Escape Breaks. The Class Pass intervention reduces disruptive behavior by allowing the student to use a limited number of passes to take brief work breaks to engage in preferred activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using Ripple Effects for behavioral RTI/MTSS is easy, efficient and effective Identify a starting point: a specific barrier that can be flipped into a goal. Discipline infractions are often the starting point for levels 2 and 3. Direct students to the learning style tutorial first.

# data[].attributes.body
Padlet and Peer Review