ISSUES & ANSWERS REL 2011– No. 116

State policies 

and procedures 

on response to 

intervention in 

the Midwest 

Region
ISSUES&ANSWERS REL 2011– No. 116

State policies and procedures on response 

to intervention in the Midwest Region

June 2011

Prepared by

Amy Detgen

AED

Mika Yamashita

AED

Brittany Davis

AED

Sara Wraight

Learning Point Associates, 

an affiliate of the American Institutes for Research
WA

OR

ID

MT

NV

CA

UT

AZ

WY

ND

SD

NE

KS

CO

NM

TX

OK AR

LA

MS AL GA

SC

NC

VA WV

KY

TN

PA

NY

FL

AK

MN

WI

IA

IL IN

MI

OH

VT

NH

ME

MO

Issues & Answers is an ongoing series of reports from short-term Fast Response Projects conducted by the regional educational laboratories on current education issues of importance at local, state, and regional levels. Fast Response Project topics 

change to reflect new issues, as identified through lab outreach and requests for assistance from policymakers and educators at state and local levels and from communities, businesses, parents, families, and youth. All Issues & Answers reports 

meet Institute of Education Sciences standards for scientifically valid research.

June 2011

This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) under Contract ED-06-CO-0019 by Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest administered by Learning Point Associates, an affiliate of the American Institutes for Research. 

The content of the publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education 

nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, it should be cited as:

Detgen, A., Yamashita, M., Davis, B., and Wraight, S. (2011). State policies and procedures on response to intervention in the 

Midwest Region. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 116). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute 

of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory 

Midwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

This report is available on the regional educational laboratory website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Summary

State policies and procedures on 

response to intervention in the 

Midwest Region

REL 2011–No. 116

Based on a review of state documents 

and interviews with state and local 

officials in six Midwest Region states, 

this qualitative study describes state 

education agency policy development 

and planning for response to intervention approaches to instruction. It also 

looks at the support provided to districts 

and schools implementing response to 

intervention.

Response to intervention is the practice of 

providing high-quality core instruction based 

on students’ needs, using data and progress 

monitoring to provide increasingly intensive 

educational interventions in a timely manner 

for students who struggle in core instruction (National Association of State Directors 

of Special Education 2005; National High 

School Center, National Center on Response to 

Intervention, and Center on Instruction 2010). 

It has garnered much interest among policymakers, researchers, and educators, both as 

a promising approach to improving student 

academic achievement and as an alternative 

means of identifying students for special education services. Since the 2004 reauthorization 

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, which requires states to permit the use of 

response to intervention in evaluating student 

eligibility for special education, states have 

become increasingly interested in supporting, 

and in some cases mandating, this approach. 

However, few studies have been conducted 

on state-level response to intervention policy, 

planning, or support.

This report provides detailed information for 

state, district, and school education leaders 

and policymakers on the status of response 

to intervention in six Midwest Region states: 

 Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin (Indiana declined to participate because its guidance on response to intervention 

was in development at the time of data collection, September 2009–March 2010).

Using a voluntary sample of six Midwest Region states, the study examines two research 

questions:

•	 What do the six states report about their 

interest in and planning and policy development for response to intervention?

•	 How and to what extent are the six states 

supporting response to intervention?

The following are the key findings:

•	 Interest in response to intervention was 

driven initially by the special education 

departments in each state, but state-level 

discussions of response to intervention are 
ii Summary

now a collaborative effort between general 

and special education departments. Interviews with state and local officials indicate 

that response to intervention is viewed as 

a vehicle for improving education for all 

students and informing decisions about 

eligibility for special education.

•	 Three states (Illinois, Michigan, and 

Minnesota) used pilot projects to plan for 

response to intervention.

•	 Planning by state education agencies often 

involved partnerships with response to 

intervention content experts and organizations such as the National Center on 

Response to Intervention and the State 

Implementation and Scaling-up Evidencebased Practices Center.

•	 One state (Illinois) requires the use of 

response to intervention in general education with all students. Another state (Iowa) 

requires its use to determine eligibility for 

special education; Illinois planned to do so 

in the 2010/11 school year.

•	 All state respondents emphasized the 

importance of allowing districts the flexibility to tailor implementation of response 

to intervention to their needs.

•	 Response to intervention is connected 

to other state initiatives in all six states. 

Officials in four states (Illinois, Iowa, 

Michigan, and Minnesota) reported 

that response to intervention is related to Reading First. All six states 

offer general guidance to districts and 

schools on what response to intervention 

typically entails. Four states (Illinois, 

Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin) have 

formulated initiatives guiding district 

implementation.

•	 Of the four states with response to intervention initiatives, Illinois, Iowa, and 

Michigan promote a three-tiered model 

(in which tier 1 provides evidence-based 

instruction for all students, tier 2 provides 

specialized group instruction for students 

who fail to make progress in tier 1, and 

tier 3 provides specialized intensive individualized instruction). Wisconsin’s model 

includes two tiers. All four models are designed for use in grades K–12 for behavior 

and reading. The models in Illinois, Iowa 

and Wisconsin can also be used with other 

subjects. Wisconsin’s model is used for 

students who exceed as well as students 

who fail to meet benchmarks.

•	 In all four states with response to intervention initiatives, implementation decisions—such as selecting interventions and 

designating staff roles—are left largely to 

districts and schools.

•	 To support implementation of response to 

intervention, all six states provide professional development to districts, often with 

the assistance of intermediate regional 

education agencies.

•	 The most common sources of funding for 

response to intervention initiatives are Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

Part B funds (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 

and Wisconsin); early intervention funds 

(Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota); and 

state funds (Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, 

and Ohio).
 Summary 

•	 All	states	have	collected	or	are	collecting	

data	on	the	extent	to	which	response	to	intervention	is	being	implemented.	One	state	

(Michigan)	has	collected	outcome	data.

•	 Officials	in	three	states	(Illinois,	Iowa,	and	

Minnesota)	mentioned	that	measuring	

fidelity	of	implementation	is	a	challenge,	

especially	because	of	the	implementation	

flexibility	given	to	districts.

While	two	states	require	the	use	of	response	

to	intervention	(Illinois,	in	general	education	

with	all	students,	and	Iowa	for	special	education	eligibility),	all	six	states	in	the	study	

support	district	implementation	of	response	

to	intervention	by	providing	general	guidance	on	what	it	entails.	State	officials	generally	

acknowledged	the	importance	of	maintaining	

district	flexibility	and	local	control.	State	and	

district	officials	indicated	that	state	response	

to	intervention	models	serve	as	a	resource	for	

districts	and	schools	rather	than	a	prescribed	

approach.	States	also	support	districts	with	

professional	development,	technical	assistance,	

and	funding.

This	study	adds	to	the	limited	research	on	

state-level	response	to	intervention	policy	and	

practice.	It	provides	a	better	understanding	of	

policy	development	and	implementation	supports	in	the	Midwest	Region	states	and	offers	

examples	of	response	to	intervention	practices	

for	states	nationwide.

The	findings	are	limited	by	the	small	number	

of	interviews	conducted—one	per	state	and	

one	per	local	district—and	cannot	be	generalized	beyond	the	study	period,	especially	as	

state-level	policies	and	supports	are	continually	evolving	and	may	have	been	updated	since	

the	completion	of	data	collection.	The	report	

is	nevertheless	useful,	because	it	maps	the	six	

states’	orientation	to	response	to	intervention	

and	the	steps	each	has	taken	to	establish	or	

support	the	approach	in	practice.

June 2011
iv Table of conTenTS

Table of conTenTS

Why this study? 1

What is response to intervention? 1

Policy context 2

Research questions 3

Study findings 6

Overview of findings 6

What do six Midwest Region states report about their interest in and planning and policy development for 

response to intervention? 7

How and to what extent are six Midwest Region states supporting response to intervention? 13

Assessing implementation and outcomes 18

Study limitations 20

Appendix A Study methods 21

Appendix B Background search on response to intervention 27

Appendix C Document review protocol 31

Appendix D Protocol for interviews with state officials 33

Appendix E Protocol for interviews with local officials 37

Appendix F State profiles 40

Appendix G Features of state response to intervention models 44

Notes 47

References 48

Boxes

1 Research methods 4

2 Key terms 4

Tables

1 Goals and factors motivating interest in response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10 7

2 Division of planning responsibilities for response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 

2009/10 9

3 Partners in planning for response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10 10

4 Response to intervention–related policy in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10 12

5 Names of state response to intervention models in four Midwest Region states, 2009/10 13

6 Tiers used in state response to intervention models in four Midwest Region states, 2009/10 14

7 Funding streams for response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10 19
Table of conTenTS 

A1 Policy documents reviewed for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10 22

A2 Topics covered by document review questions 25

F1 Response to intervention policies for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10 40

G1 Features of response to intervention models in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin 44
Why ThiS STudy?

based on a review 

of state documents 

and interviews 

with state and 

local officials 

in six Midwest 

Region states, this 

qualitative study 

describes state 

education agency 

policy development 

and planning 

for response to 

intervention 

approaches to 

instruction. It 

also looks at 

support provided 

to districts 

and schools 

implementing 

response to 

intervention.

Why ThIS STudy?

Response to intervention is rapidly emerging as 

a promising reform strategy generating strong 

interest at state and local levels and across the 

education research and development community. 

This study responds to changes in response to 

intervention practice, specifically, the strengthening of federal policy that encourages the use 

of data-based decisionmaking systems, greater 

integration of special and general education to 

address the multiple needs of struggling students, 

and inquiries from educators and state policymakers on how states are approaching response 

to intervention. The study examines the status 

of response to intervention in six states in the 

Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest 

Region (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin) focusing on state education 

agency interests, policy development, and support 

to districts and schools.

Policymakers and practitioners in the Midwest 

Region want to know how states are supporting 

response to intervention. Attendees at the Midwest 

Public Policy Institute at the Midwest Leadership 

Summit on response to intervention, in Rochester, Minnesota, in September 2008, approached 

REL Midwest representatives about how to access 

response to intervention research, with particular 

interest in surveys of state policies and procedures. During a question and answer session, state 

legislators asked the presenters for ideas on how to 

support response to intervention at the state level. 

This study responds to that request.

What is response to intervention?

Response to intervention is a multitier prevention framework for delivering education resources in which teachers implement evidencebased instruction with fidelity, regularly assess 

students to gauge academic progress, and 

continually adjust instruction to meet students’ 

needs (National Association of State Directors 

of Special Education 2005; Vaughn and Fuchs 

2003). The federally funded National Center on 
2 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Response to Intervention (2010a, p. 2) defines 

response to intervention as:

integrat[ing] assessment and intervention 

within a multilevel prevention system to 

maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems. With [response to 

intervention], schools use data to identify 

students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide 

evidence-based interventions, and adjust 

the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning 

disabilities.

The most common framework for response to intervention systems includes three tiers (Compton 

et al. 2006; Davis, Lindo, and Compton 2007; Marston 2005), which the National Research Center on 

Learning Disabilities (2005) describes as follows:

•	 Tier 1: Evidence-based instruction provided 

to all students in the general education 

classroom. Student progress is continually 

monitored.

•	 Tier 2: Small-group supplemental instruction provided to students who fail to make 

adequate progress in the general classroom. 

Programs and strategies are designed to 

supplement tier 1 instruction.

•	 	Tier	3:	Specialized	and	individualized intensive instruction provided to students who 

are not responding to tier 2 

interventions.

In addition to serving as a 

framework for the strategic 

delivery of evidence-based 

instruction and interventions 

that can accelerate learning for 

all students (Johnson, Mellard, 

and Byrd 2006), response to 

intervention can function as 

a process for identifying students with learning disabilities. The traditional referral-based 

process for helping students with special needs 

has been criticized as a “wait to fail” approach—one that identifies students only after 

they have fallen behind academically (Fletcher 

et al. 2002). The monitoring and interventions 

provided through the response to intervention 

process can reduce the number of special education referrals (Kame’enui 2007), and the data 

collected can inform the referrals that do occur. 

Because response to intervention is used in both 

identifying and supporting struggling learners, 

it bridges general and special education, which 

are often disconnected.

Policy context

In response to recent changes in federal special 

education laws, interest in response to intervention has been growing in districts and schools as 

well as in the research community. Interest was 

further fueled by the 2004 reauthorization of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 

its regulations, which require states to allow “the 

use of a process based on the child’s response to 

scientific, research-based intervention”—that is, 

response to intervention—in identifying specific 

learning disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act regulations §300.307). Districts 

may also use a portion of federal special education funds to support “early intervening services” such as response to intervention programs 

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

regulations §300.226). As a result of the act and 

its regulations, most states have proposed or finalized changes to their special education laws on 

determining specific learning disabilities (Zirkel 

and Krohn 2008).

States are increasingly interested in supporting— 

and in some cases mandating—the use of response 

to intervention. Some state education agencies 

have supported response to intervention–like initiatives at the state level (Griffiths and Tilly 2007). 

Twelve states have developed policies requiring 

the use of response to intervention to determine 

In response to recent 

changes in federal 

special education 

laws and the 2004 

reauthorization of 

the Individuals with 

disabilities education 

act, interest in response 

to intervention has been 

growing in districts and 

schools as well as in the 

research community
Why ThiS STudy?

eligibility for special education services (Zirkel 

and Thomas 2010).

A qualitative study of six states in the Southeast 

Region that adopted response to intervention 

(Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008) identifies four 

main reasons for doing so:

•	 To reduce the disproportionate representation 

of racial/ethnic minority students in special 

education.

•	 To better integrate general and special 

education.

•	 To boost achievement for all students.

•	 To assist in identifying students with learning 

disabilities.

The National Association of State Directors of 

Special Education (2005, p. 37) recommends 

that each state education agency “provide active 

leadership across general and special education” and “examine its current infrastructure 

to align, expand, and/or enhance the support 

it will provide for Local Education Agencies 

(LEAs) that are implementing response to 

intervention systems.” Studies of state policies 

and practices find that many states are fulfilling 

this role for response to intervention by supporting district implementation through such 

mechanisms as formulating a state initiative, 

allocating funds, disseminating general information, and providing technical assistance and 

professional development (Sawyer, Holland, and 

Detgen 2008; Harr-Robbins, Shambaugh, and 

Parrish 2009).

State education agencies often allow districts flexibility in making decisions on implementing response to intervention (Hoover et al. 2008; Sawyer, 

Holland, and Detgen 2008; Stepanek and Peixotto 2009). In the REL Southeast and Northwest 

Regions, for example, many states allow districts 

to select their own tools and interventions for 

response to intervention initiatives, to set criteria 

for moving between tiers, and to determine the 

specifics of monitoring progress (Sawyer, Holland, 

and Detgen 2008; Stepanek and Peixotto 2009). 

Critics of response to intervention, particularly 

of broad state policies, cite the strain local implementation could place on a district’s or school’s 

resources while raising issues of inconsistency 

and lack of fidelity (Gerber 2005; Mastropieri and 

Scruggs 2005).

Research on the state role in response to intervention is limited (Harr-Robins, Shambaugh, and 

Parrish 2009; Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008); 

no studies of the status of response to intervention policy or implementation supports have been 

conducted in the Midwest Region. This study 

provides an overview of the status of response 

to intervention in six Midwest Region states. It 

describes why state education agencies have considered adopting response to intervention, documents state policy development and planning, 

and identifies how states are supporting district 

implementation.

Research questions

The study examined two research questions using 

a voluntary sample of six Midwest region states:

•	 What do the six states report about their 

interest in and plannin

ment for response to 

intervention?

•	 How and to what extent are the six states 

supporting response 

to intervention?

The methodology used 

in the study is briefly 

described in box 1 

and covered in detail 

in appendix A. Box 2 

defines some of the 

key terms used in the 

report.

g and policy developThis study provides 

an overview of the 

status of response to 

intervention in six states 

in the Midwest Region. 

It describes why state 

education agencies have 

considered adopting 

response to intervention, 

documenting state 

policy development and 

planning, and identifying 

how states are supporting 

district implementation
4 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

and then produced document review 

summaries.

State officials were interviewed between December 2009 and February 

2010. Interviews of 50–90 minutes, 

conducted by telephone with one state 

official for each state, used a semistructured protocol with open-ended 

questions (see appendix D). The interviews collected detailed information 

on states’ experiences with response 

to intervention, planning initiatives, 

and policy development. They also 

allowed the researchers to verify the 

information obtained through document searches. Interviews covered the 

history of response to intervention 

and the factors that motivated the 

state to consider adopting it, how the 

policy was developed, planning and 

infrastructure, the model used, professional development and technical 

assistance, measurement of outcomes, 

and supports and barriers.

Local officials were interviewed 

during February–March 2010. These 

60- to 90-minute interviews were also 

conducted by telephone using a semistructured protocol with open-ended 

questions (see appendix E). The purpose of the interviews was to learn 

how one school district in each state 

adopted and implemented response 

to intervention.

Data analysis. The analytic framework for the study is based on the 

literature on developing and implementing response to intervention at 

the state and local level. The 2005 

report by the National Association of 

State Directors of Special Education 

presents considerations for policy 

and implementation. Three Regional 

Educational Laboratory reports examine state response to intervention 

policies and models —in the Northwest (Stepanek and Peixotto 2009), 

West (Harr- Robins, Shambaugh, and 

Parrish 2009), and Southeast (Sawyer, 

Holland, and Detgen 2008) Regions.

For this study, researchers identified 

what was common to the policies, 

models, and supports in other regions 

and designed the research questions, 

interview protocols, and report around 

these commonalities. They coded and 

summarized the interviews, using a 

system described in appendix A. To 

ensure that the summaries were accurate, they sent state and local officials 

the sections of the report that related 

to their state or district and asked for 

comments. (For a full description of 

the research methods, see appendix A.)

by states and approved by the U.S. 

Department of Education.

Curriculum-based measurement. The 

use of tools for measuring student 

competency and progress in reading fluency, spelling, mathematics, 

and written language that signal the 

teacher or school to revise strategies 

or programs. Curriculum-based 

measurement is a distinctive form of 

curriculum-based assessment because 

of two additional properties: each 

curriculum-based measurement test 

is an alternate form of equivalent 

difficulty, and curriculum-based measurement is standardized, with well 

documented reliability and validity.

(conTinued)
Why ThiS STudy?

or both. Five common aspects of 

fidelity include adherence, exposure, 

program differentiation, student responsiveness, and quality of delivery.

IQ–achievement discrepancy. Difference between scores on a normreferenced intelligence test and a 

norm-referenced achievement test.

Learning disability/specific learning disability. The Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act of 2004 

defines a learning disability/specific 

learning disability in the following 

manner: The child does not achieve 

adequately for the child’s age or 

meet state-approved grade-level 

standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with 

learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s 

age or state-approved grade-level 

standards: oral expression, listening 

comprehension, written expression, 

basic reading skill, reading fluency 

skills, reading comprehension, 

mathematics calculation, and mathematics problem solving.

Positive behavioral interventions and 

supports. The teaching and reinforcing of appropriate behaviors, based 

on a problem-solving model, to 

prevent inappropriate behavior.

Probe. A brief, skill-specific assessment to determine student progress.

Problem-solving model. An approach, 

used in schools for more than two 

decades, that uses interventions, 

selected by a team, that target each 

student’s individual needs.

Progress monitoring. A scientifically based practice used to assess 

students’ academic performance 

and evaluate the effectiveness of 

instruction. Progress monitoring 

can be implemented with individual 

students or an entire class. The term 

also refers to the process used to 

monitor implementation of specific 

interventions.

Standard protocol model. An approach that uses one consistent intervention, selected by the school, that 

can address multiple students’ needs.

Tiered model. A common framework 

of multiple tiers that delineate levels 

of instructional interventions based 

on student skill needs.

Universal screening. Screening, 

typically brief, of all students at a 

grade level conducted as a first stage 

within a process to identify or predict 

students who may be at risk for poor 

learning outcomes. It is followed 

by additional testing or short-term 

progress monitoring to corroborate 

students’ risk status.

Source: For adequate yearly progress, 

IQ–achievement discrepancy, learning 

disability/specific learning disability, and 

progress monitoring, RTI Action Network 

(2010a); for decision rules, Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act Partnership 

(2007); for positive behavioral interventions and supports, OSEP Technical 

Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports (2010); for 

problem-solving model, progress monitoring, and standard protocol model, IRIS 

Center (2007). All other definitions are from 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

Partnership (2010).
6 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

STudy fIndIngS

This study of the status of response 

to intervention in six Midwest Region states examined the interest 

expressed by their state education 

agencies and state policy development, planning, and support to 

districts.

Overview of findings

Overall, the study found the following:

•	 State interest in response to intervention. All 

six states in this study had considered the 

use of response to intervention as a way to 

promote the achievement of all students, as 

a way to identify students eligible for special education, or both. The states were also 

motivated by their experience with response 

to intervention.

•	 Policy development. One state (Illinois) 

requires the use of response to intervention in 

general education. One state (Iowa) requires 

its use in identifying specific learning disabilities; another (Illinois) will require its use 

for this purpose in 2010/11. All but one state 

(Iowa) also allow use of an IQ–achievement 

discrepancy model (see box 2).

•	 Planning. Although response to intervention 

is slightly more prevalent in special education 

than in general education policy, all six state 

officials interviewed emphasized that it is a 

general education initiative. State-level planning and discussion of response to intervention have been a collaborative effort by general 

and special education departments.

•	 Support from state education agencies. All six 

states offer guidance to districts and schools 

on what a response to intervention model 

looks like and involves. All six states provide 

professional development and technical assistance to districts and schools in order to share 

information on response to intervention rather 

than to prescribe how it should be implemented. Four states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin) have formulated state models 

or plans. These plans allow districts flexibility 

in implementing response to intervention to 

meet their needs and resources. Officials in Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio are seeking technical assistance on measuring the impacts of response 

to intervention when district implementation 

varies across the state.

Some of the study findings match at least one 

of the previous REL reports on response to 

intervention:

•	 The desire to promote achievement among 

all students was a motivating factor in the 

Midwest Region. Studies of the West Region 

(Harr-Robins, Shambaugh, and Parrish 2009) 

and the Northwest Region (Stepanek and 

Peixotto 2009) concluded that states conceptualized response to intervention as a framework to guide overall school improvement.

•	 Only a small number of states in the REL 

studies mandate the use of response to intervention in general education. These include 

one state in the Midwest Region (Illinois), one 

in the Southeast Region (Sawyer, Holland, 

and Detgen 2008), and one in the Northwest 

Region (Stepanek and Peixotto 2009). Only the 

study of four West Region states and five additional states (Harr-Robins, Shambaugh, and 

Parrish 2009) found a substantial number of 

states (seven) that require response to intervention in general education.

•	 Only a few states mandate the use of response 

to intervention for determining eligibility 

for special education. Of the six states, only 

Iowa does so. Similarly, the other REL studies 

found no more than two states per region that 

required such use.

•	 States in the Midwest Region did not prescribe how response to intervention should be 
STudy findingS

implemented at the local level. This finding is 

in line with that of the Southeast Region study 

(Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008).

What do six Midwest Region states report 

about their interest in and planning and policy 

development for response to intervention?

Results of the descriptive analysis are presented 

here; detailed state profiles are in appendix F.

Reported reasons for adopting, introducing, or considering response to intervention. The reasons officials adopted, introduced, or considered response 

to intervention varied across states (table 1).

Officials in three states (Illinois, Michigan, and 

Minnesota) cited the desire to improve achievement among all students. Education agency leaders in Illinois believed that promoting response 

to intervention broadly would benefit all students 

in the state. In 2006, Minnesota established eight 

pilot sites to study the variety of district response 

to intervention models and the impact of those 

models on student achievement. The impetus for 

developing the response to intervention initiative 

in Michigan was to improve services to all students through a multitiered model of support.

Two states (Iowa and Wisconsin) mentioned that 

their interest in response to intervention stemmed 

from discussions about how to improve the 

process for identifying students with disabilities. 

The Iowa state official interviewed mentioned 

reconsidering the IQ–achievement discrepancy 

approach to determine eligibility for special 

education after the 2004 President’s Commission 

on Excellence in Special Education report (Kennedy 2004) criticized its use. The state then began 

searching for a more proactive method to identify 

struggling students. Wisconsin was prompted to 

consider response to intervention as a result of the 

2004 federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which allows local education agencies to 

use an evaluation procedure to establish whether 

a child responds to scientific, research-based 

intervention as part of the process of determining 

eligibility for special education.

Table 1 

goals and factors motivating interest in response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State main reason/factor

illinois •	 To improve student achievement

•	 To build on experience with problem-solving model

iowa •	 To assist struggling students

•	 To improve the process for identifying students with disabilities

•	 To address criticism of the iQ–achievement discrepancy approach in the report of the president’s 

commission on excellence in Special education (Kennedy 2004)

•	 To build on experience with problem-solving model

michigan •	 To improve student achievement

minnesota •	 To improve student achievement

•	 To promote critical features based on the common principles of effective practice initiative, which is 

based on principles from dropout prevention, positive behavioral interventions and supports, response to 

intervention, and reading first

•	 To build on experience with problem-solving model

ohio •	 To promote the use of a data-based decisionmaking

Wisconsin •	 To improve the process for identifying students with disabilities

•	 To address the requirements of the 2004 individuals with disabilities education act

•	 To address achievement gaps

Source: Authors’ analysis based on interviews with state officials.
8 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Three states (Illinois, Iowa and 

Minnesota) cited experience with 

problem-solving models. In Illinois 

the state education agency wanted 

to expand on the problem-solving 

process used in five pilot sites. Iowa 

has used a problem-solving model 

statewide. In Minnesota a number of districts have considerable 

experience with a problem-solving 

model. Discussions about response 

to intervention in these states drew 

in part on that experience.

Initial and ongoing planning related to response 

to intervention. In discussing initial and ongoing 

planning for response to intervention, state officials mentioned collaboration between general and 

special education departments, the responsibilities of state education agency departments, pilot 

projects, and state education agency partners.

Collaboration between general and special education departments. In all six states, the initial 

interest in response to intervention came from 

special education departments, but response to 

intervention is now being considered as a general 

education initiative. Officials emphasized the 

importance of framing response to intervention as 

an approach for all students. In Iowa, the special 

education department involved the general education department and other educators in response 

to intervention planning in order to include 

different perspectives. The Iowa Department of 

Education agency decided to call the state’s tiered 

intervention model Instructional Decision Making, because staff believed that calling it response 

to intervention would give the impression that it 

was a special education effort. The Minnesota state 

official emphasized the importance of obtaining 

buy-in from both the general and special education departments.

Three states (Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin) began 

initial collaborative planning by creating a crossdivisional committee, or stakeholder group, to 

review the research, consider different response to 

intervention models, and discuss state needs. In 

Wisconsin, stakeholders across education departments worked together to define response to 

intervention for the state.

Experience with response to intervention initiatives compelled two states, Illinois and Ohio, to 

work collaboratively across departments. Illinois embarked on a five-year pilot project—the 

Alliance for School-based Problem-solving 

and Intervention Resources in Education 

(ASPIRE)—in 2006, housed primarily in the 

special education department. In 2007, the Illinois 

State Board of Education decided that the program 

should not be primarily a special education effort 

and that more departments needed to be involved 

for the program to be a true response to intervention initiative. The state’s curriculum and instruction division began working with the special 

education services division; other divisions in the 

state education agency became involved over time.

In Ohio, a previous response to intervention initiative, the Ohio Integrated Systems Model, was supported by Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act Part B funds (federal funding designed to help 

state education agencies ensure that children with 

disabilities have access to a free appropriate public 

education). Although the model’s purpose was to 

improve outcomes for all students, many districts 

viewed it as a special education initiative. The state 

decided to redesign the initiative to promote a 

system that was clearly intended to benefit all students. The current initiative—the Ohio Improvement Process, a joint venture between general 

and special education—is a broad approach to 

school improvement that incorporates data-based 

decisionmaking. (The state intentionally decided 

not to focus only on response to intervention or to 

call the new initiative response to intervention.)

Department responsibilities in planning. In all six 

states, initial discussion of response to intervention was led by special education departments. 

Over time, responsibility was transferred to general education or shared between the two departments (table 2).

In discussing planning for 

response to intervention, 

state officials mentioned 

collaboration between 

general and special 

education departments, 

the responsibilities 

of state education 

agency departments, 

pilot projects, and 

state education 

agency partners
STudy findingS

Table 2 

division of planning responsibilities for response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

lead department

general Special 

State education education divisions and services involved

illinois ✔ curriculum and instruction division

Special education Services

iowa ✔ ✔ bureau of Teaching and learning Services

bureau of Student and family Support Services

michigan ✔ ✔ office of School improvement

office of Special education and early intervention Services

minnesota ✔ ✔ Special education policy division

cross-divisional group

ohio ✔ office for exceptional children

center for School improvement

Wisconsin ✔ ✔ content and learning Team

Special education Team

Note: Ohio and Minnesota are not promoting response to intervention as a state initiative. They are included here because discussions about response to 

intervention involve both departments.

Sources: Authors’ analysis based on document review and interviews with state officials.

When asked to define the roles and responsibilities 

of various divisions in response to intervention 

planning, none of the state officials could isolate 

specific roles. Officials in five of six states (all 

except Ohio) mentioned the formation of a leadership team or work group, including representatives 

from various divisions within the state education 

agency to research and discuss response to intervention. Illinois formed a stakeholder group with 

representation from teachers unions, professional 

organizations, advocacy groups, the parents’ initiative group, and regional offices of education.

On challenges associated with cross-departmental collaboration, officials in two states (Iowa 

and Wisconsin) reported difficulties ensuring 

communication and consistently defining terms 

related to response to intervention. The Iowa official mentioned that general and special educators 

have different definitions of formative assessment 

(assessing students’ abilities and making associated adjustments to instruction). The Wisconsin 

state education official reported that communication styles vary across departments and divisions. In providing guidance to stakeholders, 

the special education or Title I team tends to use 

terms from federal education legislation, whereas 

the content and learning team and others rarely 

do. The officials from both states noted a continuing effort to work on communication between 

departments.

Pilot projects. Three states (Illinois, Michigan, and 

Minnesota) have established pilot sites to assist 

with initial or ongoing planning for response to 

intervention:

•	 The Illinois ASPIRE initiative was a pilot 

project based in five schools across the state. 

The pilot laid the groundwork for interest in 

response to intervention. When educators saw 

the approach working with struggling students, they wanted to expand it to all students 

and develop a broad policy statement.

•	 Michigan established a model demonstration 

project of academic and behavior supports in 

four schools. This work familiarized Department of Education staff with the principles 

and research supporting response to intervention in both reading and positive behavioral 

interventions and supports.
10 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

•	 Minnesota established eight pilot sites in 

2006 to study critical features of response 

to intervention. The Minnesota Department 

of Education offered seed money to study 

implementation and the effect of the districts’ problem-solving models on student 

achievement. The state continues to work 

with these sites and has developed a community of practice that has expanded to 40 

sites.1

 Lessons learned by implementers are 

used to inform policymaking and technical 

assistance.

State education agency partners. State officials 

reported working with consultants or content area 

experts, university staff, and other organizations. 

Four states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota) relied on content area experts in planning for 

response to intervention (table 3). All four worked 

with experts in positive behavioral interventions 

and supports. Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota also 

worked with content experts in reading, and Illinois and Iowa worked with content experts in 

mathematics. Minnesota worked with experts 

in implementing response to intervention and 

systemic change initiatives. These content experts assisted states by providing guidance and 

by speaking to department staff. This contact 

informed state-level decisionmakers and increased 

buy-in.

Three states (Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota) 

have worked with the State Implementation and 

Scaling up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) 

Center on response to intervention as part of this 

work:2

•	 Illinois drew on SISEP’s expertise in scaling 

up response to intervention across the state.

•	 Michigan received a SISEP grant to expand 

its response to intervention initiative, the 

Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning 

Support Initiative (MiBLSi), which had been 

under way for five years. The state request for 

proposal for an Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act Mandated Activities Project 

grant included requests for a model that 

would promote research on positive behavioral interventions and supports and for a 

reading model in line with the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000)—a federal panel convened in the 

late 1990s to assess the effectiveness of different instructional approaches in reading —and 

Reading First.3

•	 Minnesota has developed a framework that 

incorporates common principles of effective 

practice. The principles were synthesized from 

Table 3 

Partners in planning for response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

consultants/ Scaling up of national center 

content area evidence-based on response to university 

State expertsa practices center intervention staff

Technical 

assistance

comprehensive 

center

illinois ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

iowa ✔ ✔

michigan ✔ ✔

minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔

ohio ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

a. Illinois and Iowa involved experts in positive behavioral interventions and supports, reading, and mathematics. Michigan involv

behavioral interventions and supports. Minnesota involved experts in positive behavioral interventions and supports, reading, an

response to intervention and systematic change initiatives.

ed experts in positive 

d implementation of 

Source: Authors’ analysis based on interviews with state officials.
STudy findingS

the critical features of several early intervention 

and prevention initiatives, including positive 

behavioral interventions and supports, response to intervention, the Reading First school 

change model, and state implementation of 

scaling-up of evidence-based practices. Among 

the key components of the Common Principles 

of Effective Practice initiative are evidencebased practices, data-driven decisionmaking, 

and tiered levels of support that accelerate the 

learning of all students. These principles are 

being infused into technical assistance activities carried out across the state.

Other partners in response to intervention planning include the following:

The National Center on Response to Intervention, which provides technical assistance to states 

and districts in implementing proven response to 

intervention models, is assisting Iowa and Wisconsin. Iowa has received support from the center, 

and state education staff in Wisconsin will receive 

technical assistance. 

•	 Local universities have assisted two states. In 

Illinois university staff evaluated the state’s 

pilot project. In Ohio university professors 

are working with state staff to standardize 

the presentation of response to intervention 

information in their preservice, inservice, and 

professional development for teachers.

•	 Federally funded centers are assisting Illinois, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin with response to 

intervention guidance, materials, or both. All 

three states have worked with their regional 

comprehensive center—technical assistance 

centers that help schools and districts close 

achievement gaps and meet the goals of 

the No Child Left Behind Act. Illinois and 

Wisconsin have worked with the Great Lakes 

West Comprehensive Center, and Minnesota 

has worked with the North Central Comprehensive Center. In addition, Minnesota 

has worked with the Center on Instruction and the Center for Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and 

Supports.

State response to intervention policy: development 

and considerations. This 

section discusses policy 

issues on the use of response to intervention in the 

determination of eligibility for special education 

and in general education. It describes whether 

and how the six states in the study have connected response to intervention to similar existing 

initiatives.

Response to intervention policy. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, states 

must permit the use of response to intervention in 

identifying specific learning disabilities and mention response to intervention in special education 

policy. States may allow or mandate the use of 

response to intervention in place of or in addition 

to an IQ–achievement discrepancy method. Under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

of 2004 states may no longer require “the use of a 

severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and 

achievement for determining whether a child has a 

specific learning disability” and “must permit the 

use of a process based on the child’s response to 

scientific, research-based intervention.”

States may require the use of response to intervention for all students as a schoolwide instruction 

and progress monitoring system rather than solely 

as a data collection method to inform decisions 

about eligibility for special education. Five of the 

six states in this study do not require the use of 

response to intervention in general education (Illinois is the only state that does; table 4).

All six states have policies permitting the use of 

response to intervention as one method of collecting data to determine eligibility for special education services. Iowa requires the use of response 

to intervention and prohibits the use of an IQ– 

achievement discrepancy model. (Illinois, which 

requires districts to have response to intervention 

plans for general education, called for the use of 

five of the six states in 

this study do not require 

the use of response 

to intervention in 

general education
12 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Table 4 

Response to intervention–related policy in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State in general education To determine eligibility for special education

illinois districts required to have response to intervention required beginning 2010/11

plan by 1/2009

iowa not required required

michigan not required permitted, not required

minnesota not required permitted, not requireda

ohio not required permitted, not required

Wisconsin not required permitted, not required

a. One Minnesota statute requires “research-based interventions” before a referral is made for a special education evaluation. Another provides funding to 

districts that provide prevention services as an alternative to special education. Neither statute specifies response to intervention.

Source: Authors’ analysis based on document review and interviews with state officials.

response to intervention to determine eligibility 

for special education in the 2010/11 academic year). 

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin allow the use of IQ–achievement discrepancy 

models. In Minnesota, for example, the official 

explained that districts will probably use a discrepancy model until the fidelity of response to intervention models is established. The state is currently 

focused on the quality of implementation; the next 

step will be to consider using response to intervention for determining eligibility. The state’s response 

to intervention community of practice is working 

to establish implementation standards and the 

criteria for determining when a school is ready 

to exercise its choice to use data from response to 

intervention to determine eligibility for special 

education. In Michigan, where use of response to 

intervention varies by region, the state left the eligibility determination rule open, allowing districts to 

use response to intervention, the IQ–a chievement 

discrepancy model, or other methods.

Relationship to other state initiatives. Response to 

intervention is often blended with related initiatives to streamline work and reinforce common 

education goals. Connecting response to intervention with related initiatives may promote 

state-level consensus and support for response to 

intervention (Batsche et al. 2007).

All six state officials indicated that the state education agency emphasizes connections between 

response to intervention and existing programs. 

In four states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota), Reading First was described as a related 

initiative. In Illinois, staff giving presentations on 

response to intervention to Reading First districts 

have noted teachers and administrators nodding 

in agreement because of their familiarity with data 

and assessment. In Minnesota, the state education 

agency drew on the commonalities—known in the 

state as “critical features”—between the Reading First school change model4

 and response to 

intervention for its Common Principles of Effective Practice initiative. In Michigan, integrating 

response to intervention with similar initiatives 

leads to efficiencies. In Wisconsin, educators involved with an earlier, related initiative had a better understanding of state response to intervention 

principles such as data-based decisionmaking.

Respondents described linking response to intervention to other initiatives. In Illinois, funding for 

the ASPIRE initiative ended in 2010. The state education agency is connecting the work at ASPIRE 

demonstration sites with its current response to 

intervention initiative. Wisconsin’s grant-funded 

Responsive Education for All Children (REACh) 

program, based on a response to intervention 

model, will end after the 2010/11 year. The initiative provides professional development, technical 

assistance, and school-level support for implementing a research-based multitier framework 

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 
STudy findingS

2010b). The state is now expanding REACh’s 

main principles in light of its recently developed 

Response to Intervention Roadmap.

Officials in the two states without response to 

intervention initiatives (Minnesota and Ohio) 

discussed the links between response to intervention and their current initiatives. Minnesota drew 

on four practices to develop the critical features 

of its Common Principles of Effective Practice 

initiative, linking response to intervention with 

positive behavioral interventions and supports, 

dropout prevention, and Reading First. In Ohio, 

the Ohio Improvement Process is being aligned 

with response to intervention; both initiatives 

involve a systematic approach to reviewing data 

and share the common belief that all children can 

learn when provided with high-quality instruction 

tailored to their needs.

How and to what extent are six Midwest Region 

states supporting response to intervention?

Support for response to intervention includes 

providing guidance on what to implement, how to 

implement it, and how to assess implementation 

and student outcomes. This section provides details and examples of how state education agencies 

in the four states with a response to intervention 

program (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin) 

support districts in implementing it (where appropriate, practices in Minnesota and Ohio are also 

described). Additional details are in appendixes F 

and G.

State initiatives and models. One way states support implementation of response to intervention 

is by providing formal guidance on their state 

response to intervention model (table 5). A model 

is a framework for how response to intervention 

is implemented in the state. This guidance may or 

may not be mandated.

The four states with response to intervention 

initiatives differ from the two states (Minnesota 

and Ohio) in which state education agencies 

simply provide information on what response to 

intervention typically entails. Overview materials 

provided by the state education agencies in Minnesota and Ohio mention the use of a three-tiered 

model based on the response to intervention literature, for example, but do not offer a specific state 

model.

Model types. Response to intervention models are 

generally of one of two types: a problem-solving 

model or a standard protocol model. Although 

both incorporate a tiered system, the models are 

distinct. According to the IRIS Center (2007, p. 1), 

“the problem-solving approach uses interventions, 

selected by a team, that target each student’s individual needs,” whereas “the standard treatment 

protocol approach uses one consistent intervention, selected by the school, that can address multiple students’ needs.” Models are often hybrids 

of these two types (Kovaleski 2007; Vaughn and 

Fuchs 2003): a standard protocol used with all 

students, followed by a problem-solving approach 

with individual students.

All four states with response to intervention initiatives use a problem-solving approach; two (Iowa and 

Michigan) also use a standard protocol approach. 

Iowa, which has more than 15 years of experience 

using a problem-solving approach, refers to its 

Instructional Decision Making model as “an evolved 

problem-solving approach,” because Instructional 

Decision Making incorporates a standard protocol in 

addition to a problem-solving approach

Table 5 

names of state response to intervention models 

in four Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State model name

illinois response to intervention

iowa instructional decision making

michigan michigan’s integrated behavior and 

learning Support initiative

Wisconsin Wisconsin response to intervention 

roadmap

Note: Michigan and Ohio do not have an response to intervention 

model.

Source: Authors’ analysis based on document review and interviews 

with state officials.
14 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Tiered intervention. A basic feature of a response 

to intervention model is a tiered system with levels 

of rising intensity of instructional support and 

resources. A three-tier system is most common 

(Compton et al. 2006; Davis, Lindo, and Compton 2007; Marston 2005). Three of the four states 

with state response to intervention models have a 

three-tiered system (Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan; 

table 6). The three models are consistent with 

the tiered intervention strategy described in the 

response to intervention literature, in which tier 1 

encompasses core instruction for all students, tier 

2 encompasses supplemental instruction, and tier 

3 encompasses intensive instruction for a small 

number of students.

No states set clear parameters or criteria for 

moving students between tiers. Illinois provides 

general guidance on “decision rules” for placing 

students in tiers by referring districts to Florida’s 

problem-solving response to intervention model 

(Batsche 2007). Iowa’s Instructional Decision 

Making manual recommends that students “move 

from one cycle of instruction [or tier] to another 

as indicated by the data” (Iowa Department of 

Education 2007, p. 3). In Wisconsin decisions 

about when a student moves from core instruction 

(tier 1) are based on benchmarks, but the state lets 

districts define the benchmarks.

All four state models include the option to request 

a special education evaluation at any time during 

tiered interventions. None of the models includes 

special education as part of the tier system. In 

Illinois, the state response to intervention plan 

indicates that “eligibility decisions typically occur 

within tier 3 when students do not respond to the 

most intensive interventions but may occur at any 

tier. . . . [A] parent may request an evaluation at 

any point during this intervention process” (Illinois State Board of Education 2008, p. 4).

Grade levels and subjects. Response to intervention 

is most commonly associated with early literacy 

instruction, but it has been applied to other content areas, to efforts to improve classroom behavior, and to higher grade levels (Harr-Robbins, 

Shambaugh, and Parrish 2009; Sawyer, Holland, 

and Detgen 2008; National High School Center, 

National Center on Response to Intervention, and 

Table 6 

Tiers used in state response to intervention models in four Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State model name Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

illinois response to intervention All students: core Some students (at-risk): up Individual students (very 

curriculum meets the to 20 percent of students small group): up to 5 

needs of at least 80 may be identified as percent of students may be 

percent of students at-risk identified as at-risk

iowa instructional decision Core cycle: more than Supplemental cycle: no Intensive cycle: no specific 

making 80 percent of students specific number number

proficient

michigan michigan’s integrated Universal level: received Secondary level: received Tertiary level (highly specific):

behavior and learning by all students by 40 percent of students received by 20 percent of 

and Support initiative students

Wisconsin Wisconsin’s response To core instruction (high- instruction, 

intervention roadmapa quality, differentiated, collaboration/results 

culturally responsive, monitoring, balanced 

core academic and assessment system: 

behavior instruction): no specific number of 

received by all students students

a. Wisconsin’s roadmap differs from the typical triangle-shaped visual framework used in response to intervention; it does not have a set number of levels 

(see www.dpi.state.wi.us/rti/index.html).

Source: Authors’ analysis based on review of documents and Illinois State Board of Education (2008) for Illinois.
STudy findingS

Center on Instruction 2010). All four states with 

response to intervention models promote use of 

the model in all K–12 classrooms, but they give 

local districts flexibility in selecting grades for 

implementation. Many districts first implement 

response to intervention in elementary school 

before expanding it to higher grades as they gain 

experience with the model. All four states use 

response to intervention to help students academically and to improve student behavior. All four 

state models in this study are designed for use in 

reading. In Illinois and Wisconsin, the model can 

be used in all subjects. Iowa’s model is also used 

in math and can be used for other subjects, but 

according to the state official interviewed, assessment tools are lacking for subjects other than 

reading and math.

All four models are designed for use in helping 

students with behavior problems. Illinois considers improving classroom behavior as complementary to improving academics. The Illinois official 

explained that schools that have been the most 

successful with response to intervention, especially high schools, treat behavior as just as important as academics. Michigan refers to its model as 

an integrated model of academic and behavioral 

support. A local school official explained that although Michigan’s initiative focuses exclusively on 

reading and positive behavioral interventions and 

supports, the district had schools that urgently 

needed help in writing and math. The district 

therefore expanded Michigan’s model and applied 

it to these areas.

State guidance on implementing response to 

intervention. All four states let districts make 

most of the implementation decisions. Policies on 

interventions to be used with struggling students, 

defined roles for school staff, and specific recommended assessments differ across the states.

District flexibility/local control. Like state education agencies in other regions (Sawyer, Holland, 

and Detgen 2008; Stepanek and Peixotto 2009), all 

four states with response to intervention models studied here emphasized the importance of 

allowing districts flexibility in implementation:

•	 The Illinois Department of Education 

promotes local 

control: there is no 

state curriculum and no requirement to use 

state textbooks. Although the state requires 

districts to develop a response to intervention plan, districts can approach it differently, 

based on their expertise, resources, and local 

needs.

•	 Iowa has historically been a local control 

state. Although, Iowa requires the use of its 

response to intervention model in special 

education eligibility decisions, its use in general education is strictly voluntary for Iowa 

districts.

•	 Michigan’s focus is on the critical features of 

evidence-based practice and data-based decisions. Districts use a variety of approaches to 

implement those features.

•	 The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction left decisionmaking up to districts 

and schools. The state is establishing a state 

response to intervention center, funded by an 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

discretionary grant, to assist districts and 

schools. A regional district officer expressed 

appreciation for the flexibility given to 

districts.

Instead of mandating implementation procedures 

for response to intervention, the four states provide guidance on model components and processes. Iowa’s manual on Instructional Decision 

Making notes that although the process is “implemented differently in various school settings, there 

are key features to the systemic decisionmaking 

process that are necessary if each student is to 

progress” (Iowa Department of Education 2007, p. 

3). The manual notes that all students should have 

access to a curriculum that demonstrates “rigor 

all four states let districts 

make most of the 

implementation decisions 

on implementing 

response to intervention
16 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

and relevance,” that assessment data should be 

gathered regularly, and that students should move 

from one cycle of instruction (Iowa’s term for tier) 

to the next.

Interventions. Although all four state models 

provide guidance on what should occur in each tier 

(see appendixes F and G for details), none of the 

states suggests specific interventions for students 

who are falling behind. All models emphasize the 

use of research- or evidence-based curriculum, 

instruction, and interventions. The website describing Michigan’s initiative (Michigan Department 

of Education, n.d. a) offers examples and support 

strategies at each tier but imposes no requirements.

All four models include differentiating instruction (see box 1) as part of tier 1 core instruction. 

Iowa’s guidance recommends the “earliest possible 

differentiation” in order to respond to students’ 

individual learning needs; teachers are encouraged to consider pacing, content, process, product, 

and environment in adapting instruction (Iowa 

Department of Education 2007). The Wisconsin 

Response to Intervention (RTI) Self-assessment 

for Schools and Districts states: “High quality 

instruction responds to individual differences in a 

learning community/classroom. Inherent to high 

quality instruction is rigorous content delivered 

through differentiated instruction” (Wisconsin 

Department of Public Instruction 2010e, p. 4).

Staff roles. The roles of school and district staff are 

typically determined at the local level; however, the 

four states share certain basic practices. In all four 

states, classroom teachers are responsible for providing tier 1 instruction, sometimes assisted by reading 

teachers or Title I teachers. Other 

staff may be asked to assist with 

progress monitoring or assessment. 

A wide variety of staff members—

school psychologists, reading 

teachers, guidance counselors, 

paraprofessionals, special education teachers—provide tier 2 and 

tier 3 supports and assessments. 

In Michigan, the Department of 

Education ensures that the staff delivering the intervention have the necessary skills and training.

Assessment/progress monitoring. All four states 

screen, assess, and monitor the progress of students as key pieces of response to intervention, but 

none specifies which assessments are to be used. 

In Illinois, for example, many districts have had 

their own assessment systems in place for years, 

and some have designed their own assessments. 

Rather than prescribe assessments, states provide 

guidance about the purpose of assessments:

•	 Illinois’s response to intervention guidelines 

discuss three kinds of assessments to use: 

screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments.

•	 Iowa recommends the use of screening and 

diagnostic and formative assessments. The 

state defines screening as a method of collecting data for determining how each student is 

performing in a given area, diagnostic assessments as gathering information from multiple 

sources to determine why students are not 

benefiting from the core cycle, and formative assessment as the regular and systematic 

collection of data relevant to the stated goal 

(Iowa Department of Education 2007).

•	 Michigan’s initiative guidelines suggest using 

four kinds of assessments: screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome assessments. It is the only state to provide guidance 

on how often to assess students. The Michigan 

Department of Education (n.d. c) states that in 

reading, universal screening occurs “typically three times a year” and that “diagnostic 

measures are used as needed for additional 

information on student reading performance 

and assisting in problem solving when student 

performance in reading is less than desired.”

•	 Wisconsin has designed a “balanced assessment system” that incorporates formative assessment (daily ongoing evaluation strategies), 

benchmark assessments (periodic diagnostic 

all four states screen, 

assess, and monitor the 

progress of students as 

key pieces of response 

to intervention, 

but none specifies 

which assessments 

are to be used
STudy findingS

and progress assessments), and summative 

assessments (large-scale standardized assessments). The Response to Intervention Roadmap guidance includes examples of possible 

assessments for each type of assessment.

State support for implementing response to intervention. This section describes the types of 

support states provide in helping regions, districts, 

and schools implement response to intervention. It 

also examines funding for these initiatives.

Professional development. All six states provide 

professional development on response to intervention. The Illinois official cited the need for a strong 

mechanism to disseminate response to intervention information across the state. The Wisconsin 

official mentioned the importance of school staff 

understanding the research base and background of 

response to intervention and noted that professional 

development deepens that knowledge over time.

States provide professional development for 

response to intervention in a variety of ways. Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin train staff in regional 

agencies, which in turn train school district employees on how to use response to intervention:

•	 In Illinois, 57 regional offices of education 

provide basic overview training in response to 

intervention to schools. The state has created 

13 online training modules on response to 

intervention topics. Regional education offices 

will provide in-person training based on these 

modules in summer 2011.

•	 In Iowa, Department of Education coaches 

work with regional education agencies to set 

up teams that work with and train staff in 

school districts. Iowa also offers statewide 

training, during which school districts share 

their implementation stories.

•	 Wisconsin’s Department of Education does not 

have the capacity to provide large-scale professional development. It provides basic overview 

information on response to intervention and 

the state definition 

and relies on regional 

cooperative education 

service agencies for 

more detailed training. According to the 

state official interviewed, the drawback to this 

approach is that although the training sessions 

are based on the same state-provided content, 

interpretations of the content may differ. The 

state is establishing a response to intervention 

center that will provide more standardized 

professional development.

In Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio, state education agencies provide professional development 

directly:

•	 The Michigan Department of Education offers 

professional development to school leadership 

teams through a core set of training sessions 

focused on the three-tier model, research related to core instruction, and positive behavioral interventions and supports for students. 

The training is prescriptive, in that all school 

leadership teams are trained in the same topics using the same training curriculum, but 

team time during training allows for differentiation to accommodate schools at all response 

to intervention skill levels. The Michigan 

Department of Education also partners with 

independent school districts to offer training both to schools that are participating in 

Michigan’s response to intervention program 

and to those that are not. State conferences are 

open to all schools, and the Michigan Department of Education staff give presentations on 

Michigan’s response to intervention initiative 

on request. Separate training is provided to 

reading and behavior coaches.

•	 The Minnesota Department of Education has 

set up a community of practice to enable practitioners to discuss issues related to implementation, including how to make improvements and which tools have been particularly 

useful.

all six states provide 

professional 

development on 

response to intervention
18 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

•	 The Ohio Department of Education has given 

presentations on general guidance for response to intervention at the Office for Exceptional Children Special Education Conference.

Funding for professional development was 

identified as a problem by one state official (from 

Iowa). Funds are needed not only to develop 

and conduct training but also to hire substitute 

teachers while teachers are receiving training. An 

Illinois school district official noted that only a 

limited number of staff in each district are able 

to participate in the professional development 

offered by the state. In a district of almost 30,000 

students, for example, only 20 people can attend 

state-provided professional development. The districts have responded by pooling resources and 

conducting professional development on their 

own, recruiting the same speakers and trainers 

as the state.

Technical assistance. State officials in Illinois, 

Iowa, and Wisconsin mentioned the major role 

of intermediate agencies in assisting districts.5

The Illinois official referred to the regional offices 

of education as “technical assistance outreach.” 

In Iowa, area education agencies provide most 

of the technical assistance, although some Iowa 

Department of Education staff work directly with 

districts. This interaction helps both the schools 

and the department better understand local 

struggles. The Wisconsin official mentioned that 

the intermediate service agencies were useful in 

implementing large-scale technical assistance 

plans to districts.

Michigan uses 10 regional staff, called technical assistance partners, instead 

of intermediate agencies, to 

provide technical assistance to 

schools, coaches, and principals. 

District coaches are responsible for working with schools 

in their districts. Information 

supplied on the MiBLSi website 

also serves as a form of technical assistance. The Michigan 

official argued that professional development 

must be followed by technical assistance to 

support district and school staff members who 

lack experience working with data or data-based 

decisionmaking.

An internal team at the Minnesota Department of Education created tools and a consumer 

guide presentation. The state is in the process of 

examining where technical assistance is needed. 

Minnesota does not provide response to intervention coaches, but the state is focusing on quality 

implementation of the critical features of the 

state’s Common Principles of Effective Practice 

initiative.

Funding. States rely on a variety of funding sources 

to support response to intervention activities. 

The most common is Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B funds.6

 Funding is also 

provided through early intervention funds, state 

funds, state personnel development grant monies, 

and Title I, Title IIA, and Title III funds (table 7). 

In Illinois and Minnesota, state education agencies stress to districts that in seeking funding they 

should remember that response to intervention 

is about good instruction and that quality core 

instructional programs have multiple sources 

of funding. The official in Minnesota noted that 

certain federal funding sources cannot be used for 

screening students.

Assessing implementation and outcomes

Five of the six states in the study (all but Ohio) 

have assessed or are beginning to assess the extent 

to which response to intervention has been implemented in their state:

•	 Illinois has collected implementation data on 

its ASPIRE initiative.

•	 Iowa has gathered some implementation data 

but is not yet confident in the data.

Michigan is assessing its response to intervention initiative. The MiBLSi website provides a 

five of the six states in 

the study have assessed 

or are beginning to 

assess the extent 

to which response 

to intervention has 

been implemented 

in their state
STudy findingS

Table 7 

funding streams for response to intervention in six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

individuals with 

disabilities education State personnel 

State act part ba early intervention State development grant Title i other

illinois ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Title iii

iowa ✔ ✔ federal stimulus

michigan ✔ ✔ ✔

minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

ohiob ✔ Title iia, Title iii

Wisconsin ✔

a. Districts are permitted to use no more than 15 percent of their Part B funds to develop and implement early intervening services for children in K–12.

b. Information for Ohio is based on an interview with a district official. There may be additional sources of funding of response to intervention in Ohio.

Source: Authors’ analysis based on interviews with state officials.

measurement schedule for administering various 

evaluation tools, including positive behavioral 

interventions and supports self-assessments, 

implementation checklists, and a planning and 

evaluation tool (Michigan Department of Education n.d. a).

•	 Minnesota is examining implementation of its 

response to intervention initiative in districts, 

particularly as it applies to academics.

•	 Wisconsin has started to collect implementation data by conducting a survey of schools.

Measuring fidelity of implementation—whether 

a model or intervention was implemented as 

intended—can be critical in assessing initiatives. 

Although three states (Illinois, Michigan, and 

Minnesota) have acknowledged the importance 

of measuring fidelity of implementation and 

discussed the challenges, only one state (Iowa) 

has collected data on fidelity. Area education 

agencies in Iowa visit schools to examine how 

effectively response to intervention is being 

implemented. This arrangement works well, according to the Iowa official interviewed, because 

districts are familiar with area education agencies through training and technical assistance; 

if state education agency staff went into schools 

to observe their work, the schools might find it 

threatening.

Three states (Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota) 

noted the difficulties of measuring fidelity when 

implementation varies across districts:

•	 Although having strict state policies would 

make it easier to measure fidelity of implementation, the Illinois State Board of Education understands that districts and schools 

have unique characteristics and resources.

•	 Michigan acknowledges that some schools are 

doing a better job with implementation than 

others, which makes it difficult to measure 

state-level effects. Officials are examining the 

extent of implementation across the state and 

the relationship to student outcomes.

In Minnesota, districts are reluctant to abandon 

the IQ–achievement discrepancy model they use 

to identify students eligible for special education 

until they feel confident that response to intervention is being implemented with fidelity. Two states 

(Michigan and Minnesota) have moved beyond 

collecting implementation data to evaluating the 

effects of response to intervention. Michigan’s initiative is the only state model for which outcome 

data have been collected. According to the state 

official, schools have already seen improvement 

in student academic performance, a decline in the 

number of students in tiers 2 and 3, and a decline 

in the number of students who receive discipline 
20 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

referrals.7 Minnesota plans to carry out an effectiveness study for districts that are implementing 

response to intervention.

Several state officials discussed the challenges of 

evaluating response to intervention. Officials in 

three states (Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio) reported that 

they would like to learn more about how to reliably 

measure effects on academic performance and on 

the number of students identified for special education when district implementation of response 

to intervention varies.

STudy lIMITaTIonS

The information in this report was collected during September 2009–February 2010. In interviews 

with state and local officials, the study team verified that the documents reviewed were accurate. 

It is possible that some officials were misinformed 

and inadvertently provided inaccurate information. States might also have developed new policies 

since the interviews were conducted.

The study team interviewed one district and one 

state official in each state. Responses were not verified, so self-reported data might have been biased. 

All district-level respondents were early implementers of response to intervention; their perspectives may differ from those of more recent implementers. Moreover, they may have developed their 

models and policies in the absence of state policy 

or guidance. Interviews with additional respondents at each site might have provided different 

perspectives. Respondents noted much variability 

in the use of response to intervention locally; it is 

beyond the scope of this study to determine the 

effect within states of state policies and guidance.

Indiana declined to participate in the study, because it was developing its policy and did not want 

to share information prematurely. Its experience 

might differ from that of the participating states.

Researcher bias and subjectivity are inherent 

in qualitative research. For this reason, other 

researchers studying the same data might have 

reported different findings.
 A
22 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Table a1 

Policy documents reviewed for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State documents

illinois illinois aSpire 

http://www.illinoisaspire.org/welcome/

The response to intervention plan 

http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/conf/2008/presentation_session27.ppt

Writing the rTi (response to intervention) district plan 

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/rti_plan/rti_district_presentation9-08.ppt

iowa Special education eligibility Standards http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_

docmanandtask=doc_downloadandgid=2097

instructional decision making http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_docmanandtask=doc_

downloadandgid=3840

instructional decision making http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewa

ndid=801anditemid=1305

michigan presentation on response to intervention 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/item_a_254706_7.pdf

Scaling up response to intervention (rti) in michigan 

http://miblsi.cenmi.org/presentations/michigan’s integrated behavior and learning supportinitiativepresentations/

tabid/691/articleType/articleview/articleid/276/Scalingup-response-to-intervention-rti-in-michigan.aspx

michigan’s integrated behavior and learning Support initiative 

http://miblsi.cenmi.org/

minnesota determining the eligibility of Students with Specific learning disabilities 

http://education.state.mn.us/mde/learning_Support/Special_education/categorical_disability_information/

Specific_learning_disabilities/index.html

minnesota Statute: Specific learning disability (the minnesota department of education provides the link to 

this statute on determining specific learning disability) 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=3525.1341

ohio response to intervention 

http://education.ohio.gov/gd/documentmanagement/documentdownload.aspx?documentid=56388

response to intervention (rti): a framework for improving the performance of all Students 

http://education.ohio.gov/gd/documentmanagement/documentdownload.aspx?documentid=57077

The ohio improvement process (oip): Toward a unified State System of Support 

http://education.ohio.gov/gd/documentmanagement/documentdownload.aspx?documentid=70925

Wisconsin response to intervention (rti): how can We make it Work in Wisconsin? 

http://dpi.wi.gov/rti/ppt/rti_intro.ppt

Wisconsin response to intervention (response to intervention) Self-assessment for Schools and districts 

http://dpi.wi.gov/rti/pdf/rtiselfassess.pdf

Wisconsin response to intervention 

http://dpi.wi.gov/rti/index.html

Wisconsin’s State performance plan:2005–2006 through 2010–2011 

http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/spp.html

Source: Authors’ search of state education agency websites.

questions. Each reviewer also noted any inconsistency between documents within a state. If information was incomplete after cross-referencing 

document reviews, researchers asked the state 

official for the information.

Interviews with state and local officials. The second 

step in data collection was to conduct interviews 

with officials from state education agencies and 

school districts. The background search for literature on state and local response to intervention 
policies was used to design the data collection 

instruments (see appendix B). The study team 

determined the topic categories of interest from 

studies and developed interview questions in order 

to obtain information on those topics.

Interviews with state officials. The purpose of the 

interviews with state officials was to gather detailed 

information on states’ experiences in considering 

response to intervention, planning initiatives, and developing policy. In addition, researchers verified the 

information obtained through document searches.

Interviews with state officials covered the following topics:

•	 Experience with response to intervention and 

factors that motivated the state to consider 

using it.

•	 Policy development, planning, and 

infrastructure.

•	 The state’s response to intervention model.

•	 Professional development and technical 

assistance.

•	 Measurement of outcomes.

•	 Supports and barriers.

(See appendix D for the protocol used for interviewing state officials.)

Potential state-level respondents were identified 

through online searches during the document 

review. The study sample was purposive; the 

research team aimed to interview individuals who 

had leadership responsibilities for planning and 

implementing response to intervention as well as 

knowledge regarding the adoption and implementation of response to intervention in the state. The 

sample was not meant to be representative of all 

perspectives on response to intervention in each 

state but rather to provide thorough information 

on the topic. Through REL Midwest, staff from the 

Great Lakes East and Great Lakes West comprehensive centers with experience working with the 

seven state departments of education were asked 

to verify the proposed contact list. No changes 

were made. Researchers then contacted the potential respondents by e-mail and subsequently by 

telephone, asking them to participate in the study. 

Officials from six of the seven states participated 

in the study (the official from Indiana declined 

to participate, because the state was developing 

policy and did not want to share information prematurely). Upon receipt of a signed consent form, 

researchers scheduled interviews with the officials.

Two researchers conducted each interview by 

telephone, using a semistructured protocol with 

open-ended questions. The interview protocol was 

created from the study’s topic categories, established to answer the study’s two research questions. Questions were tailored to both verify and 

clarify the material obtained online.

Interviews were conducted between December 2009 and February 2010. Each interview 

lasted 50–90 minutes. Five of six interviews 

were recorded (after acquiring permission from 

the respondent). The recorded interviews were 

transcribed. For the unrecorded interview, two 

researchers took notes.

Interviews with local officials. The purpose of 

the local interviews was to learn how one school 

district in each state adopted and implemented 

response to intervention. This information was 

meant to provide an example of what local implementation looks like within each state.

Interviews with local officials covered the following topics:

•	 Experience with response to intervention and 

factors that motivated the district to consider 

using it.

•	 Planning and infrastructure.

•	 The district’s response to intervention model.
24 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

•	 The influence of state guidance on local response to intervention policy or practice.

•	 Professional development and technical 

assistance

•	 Measurement of outcomes.

•	 Supports and barriers.

(See appendix E for the protocol used for interviewing local officials.)

To identify appropriate individuals for interviews, 

researchers used a snowball (or chain sampling) 

approach (Patton 2002), asking respondents to 

nominate a local official from a district or school 

with the most advanced implementation of 

response to intervention. This purposeful sampling of districts enabled researchers to gather 

rich, detailed information from districts with the 

most experience with response to intervention. 

Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin nominated one 

school district each; Michigan and Minnesota each 

nominated one regional district, representing a 

cluster of smaller districts. Potential respondents 

were contacted by e-mail and subsequently by 

telephone. Researchers explained the purpose of 

the study and invited them to participate. Four 

school districts and two regional districts took 

part in the study. (The study team did not conduct 

a local interview in Indiana, because the state did 

not participate in the study.)

Interviews were conducted by telephone during 

February–March 2010. Each interviews lasted 

60–90 minutes. All interviews were recorded 

(after acquiring permission from respondents) and 

transcribed.

Data analysis

The analytic framework for the study was based 

on the literature on response to intervention policy 

development and implementation at the state 

and local levels. The National Association of State 

Directors of Special Education (2005) identified 

policy and implementation matters to consider. 

REL reports studied these issues in the Northwest 

(Stepanek and Peixotto 2009), West (Harr-Robins, 

Shambaugh, and Parrish 2009), and Southeast 

(Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008) Regions. Researchers for this study identified the common aspects in descriptions of policies, models, and supports in the literature and designed the research 

questions, interview protocols, and reports using 

the categories that resulted. To analyze the data, 

they used deductive content analysis of document 

reviews and interview transcripts (Elo and Kyngäs 

2008; Hsieh and Shannon 2005), creating categories that corresponded to the research questions.

Analysis of documents. Once the document reviews 

were completed, researchers processed them 

with Atlas.ti, a qualitative software program. To 

do so, they first created four base categories: the 

nature of the document (for example, regulation, 

guidance, other), the state, the author, and the 

year published. They then entered the categories 

in Atlas.ti for each document review question. 

Because the document reviews were conducted in 

order to answer specific questions, researchers selected the text answer to each question and placed 

it under the appropriate category (table A2).

After completing the coding of the document 

review protocols, researchers generated reports 

for each category and wrote a document review 

summary of the findings by research question for 

each state. Two researchers split up the states, with 

one creating summaries for four states and the 

other creating summaries for three states. When 

necessary, researchers checked the documents to 

add examples. From these summaries, researchers 

created a matrix to identify commonalities and 

variances across states in each category.

Analysis of interviews. After deleting identifying 

information from the transcripts, researchers 

analyzed the documents using Atlas.ti. As with the 

document review analysis, researchers first used 

base categories in Atlas.ti to indicate the nature 

of the document (for example, interview) and 

whether it was state or local. They then entered in 
Table a2 

Topics covered by document review questions

research question/question from document review protocol Topic

research question 1: What do six midwest region states report about their interest in and policy development and planning 

for response to intervention?

1. does this document mention how this policy or material was developed? does it justify the policy development

policy or approach? What are the problems identified? Who is promoting this policy?

2. What does this document state about the role of response to intervention in this state? how law, regulations, 

does response to intervention relate to general education and special education? is response to guidance

intervention required?

3. What is the lead agency for response to intervention within each state department of education? division of 

responsibilities 4. how are tasks and responsibilities divided for response to intervention? is it a general or special 

education initiative? Which state offices are involved in response to intervention planning and 

implementation?

research question 2: how and to what extent are six midwest region states supporting response to intervention?

5. What response to intervention model is suggested (problem-solving protocol, standard models of response to 

treatment protocol, or hybrid model?) What does it look like? is it mandatory? intervention

6. is the model a tiered system? if so, what does it look like? how many tiers are there and how do Tiered system

they differ?

6a. What should happen in each tier? What is the teacher’s (classroom teacher’s, special education Tiered system: 

teacher’s, other teacher’s) role in response to intervention? What interventions are suggested interventions

and for what purposes? is there any guidance for how to select interventions?

6b. are any tools or assessments specified (for example, dibelS, aimSweb, progresspro)? how is the Tiered system: 

intervention monitored? What types of data are collected? is it mandatory to collect and report assessment

data?

6c. What criteria are used to determine who moves up or down the tiers and when? Tiered system: criteria 

for moving between 

tiers

6d. is response to intervention used to determine eligibility for special education? how is it Tiered system: 

determined? eligibility for special 

education

6e. is response to intervention fidelity of intervention measured? What types of data are collected? Tiered system: fidelity 

is it mandatory to collect and report data? measures

7. if a tiered system is not suggested or if any other forms and interventions are suggested, what untiered system

interventions are suggested? Why? What do they look like?

8. What are the targeted grade levels of response to intervention? What academic subjects grade level, academic 

(reading, mathematics, other)? is response to intervention mandatory? subjects

9. are there any activities the state education agency supports in connection with response to Technical support from 

intervention (for example, support to educators in selecting specific models, summer institute, state to local education 

online modules)? agencies

10. is there any mention of an implementation plan? is there any mention of how response to implementation

intervention should be implemented and scaled up? does the document mention anything 

about actual implementation? is there any mention of spread of response to intervention in the 

state?

11. is there any mention of how response to intervention will be funded? funding for response 

to intervention

Source: Authors’ search of state education agency website.
26 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

the topic categories to match the interview questions. Where applicable, researchers used the same 

categories used in the document reviews; in a few 

categories, however—such as motivation for and 

interest in response to intervention—information 

was obtained only through interviews. Researchers also created categories for the data obtained 

from interviews with local officials. They then 

reviewed the transcripts and assigned text segments to the relevant categories (the unit of data 

was usually a paragraph).

Two researchers independently reviewed the 

first interview transcript and assigned the text to 

categories in order to discuss inconsistencies and 

refine the category definitions. The inconsistencies were few; the two researchers discussed their 

opinions and came to agreement on the categories 

that provided the best fit for the text. Researchers 

then refined category definitions in order to clarify 

their meaning. When multiple categories were 

mentioned in one paragraph, researchers assigned 

the paragraph to all relevant categories. Questions 

about this process were discussed during a weekly 

team meeting.

During interview data analysis, the team identified text segments from the district-level interviews that provided examples of local perspectives 

on state response to intervention policies and 

practices.

After categorizing the paragraphs, researchers 

generated a report from Atlas.ti for each category 

that included all assigned text segments. Researchers read the reports and created a summary 

of each category by state, adding information 

from the interview findings to the document 

review summaries. They then created a matrix of 

all the summaries by category and state, which 

they used to compare categories across states and 

identify similarities and differences. In order 

to ensure that the summaries were accurate, 

researchers sent respondents the sections of the 

report that related to their state or district and 

asked them to review it. Five of the six states 

made revisions that were incorporated into the report. Researchers used the analysis matrices and 

analysis summaries to create state profiles and the 

tables in the report.

Protection of confidentiality

Although no names or position titles appear in 

the report, confidentiality could not be guaranteed. State and local officials were told that their 

identity might be discernible to readers because 

they were selected from a small sample of possible 

respondents.

The study reveals identifying information about 

state and district experiences with policy development and implementation (taken from interviews) 

that is not available publicly. Respondents were 

asked to sign a consent form clearly informing 

them about the potential use in the study of such 

identifying information.

To offer some protection of confidentiality, the 

study team deleted respondents’ names from 

transcripts and interview notes. The computers on 

which the study team saved the transcripts and 

analysis documents were password protected and 

accessible only by the researchers. Digital files of 

the interviews were destroyed after transcription, 

and paper files were kept in a locked file cabinet. 

All documents and data will be erased or shredded 

three years after completion of the study.
(National Association of State Directors of Special 

Education 2005; Vaughn and Fuchs 2003).

Reasons for state interest in response to intervention

Response to intervention has come to the forefront of education reform efforts in recent years, 

with both federal legislation and state initiatives promoting it and similar initiatives. Under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

2004, states are no longer required to use an 

IQ–achievement discrepancy approach to identify students with learning disabilities; response 

to intervention can be used in special education 

evaluation procedures.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 stresses the 

importance of evidence-based practices, scientifically based research, and the monitoring of student progress (Brown-Chidsey and Steege 2005), 

all of which are key components of response to 

intervention. In addition to offering an approach 

to meeting legislative requirements, response to 

intervention is designed to provide effective early 

intervention to struggling learners that may help 

reduce the number of students needing assessment and special education (Kame’enui 2007) 

and accelerate learning for all students (Johnson, 

Mellard, and Byrd 2006). Response to intervention 

has also been adopted as a way of reducing the 

disproportionate representation of minorities in 

special education, better integrating general and 

special education, and improving achievement for 

all students (Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008).

Promotion of response to intervention

State education agencies promote response to 

intervention in various ways. They develop state 

policy, establish a state response to intervention 

model, and provide support to districts and schools 

through professional development and technical 

assistance (Harr-Robins, Shambaugh, and Parrish 

2009; Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008).

State-level policy development. The number of 

states developing response to intervention policy 
28 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

has been increasing. One year after the enactment 

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act 2004 regulations, 6 states required the use 

of response to intervention to identify specific 

learning disabilities and prohibited the use of an 

IQ–achievement discrepancy model, 26 states allowed both approaches, and 10 allowed some other 

research-based alternative to identifying specific 

learning disabilities (Ahearn 2009). A survey 

conducted in 2008 found that 26 states were in 

the planning or proposing stage on response to 

intervention regulations (Zirkel and Krohn 2008). 

An in-depth examination of state laws on response 

to intervention conducted in 2010 showed that the 

number of states requiring response to intervention for the identification of specific learning 

disability identification had doubled to 12 (Zirkel 

and Thomas 2010); 5 states prohibit an IQ– 

achievement discrepancy approach.

The National Association of State Directors of 

Special Education (2005) offers guidance on 

implementing response to intervention. It advises 

state education agencies to “provide active leadership across general and special education” and 

to “examine its current infrastructure to align, 

expand and/or enhance the support it will provide 

for LEAs [local education agencies] that are implementing response to intervention systems” (p. 37).

Three qualitative studies conducted by regional 

educational laboratories (RELs) indicate that 

although the majority of states support response 

to intervention, policy development in each 

state varies. In a study of the Northwest Region 

(Stepanek and Peixotto 2009), one state reported 

having a general education response to intervention policy and four states had policies related to 

determining eligibility for special education based 

on federal regulations. All five states provided 

support for response to intervention, including 

information dissemination, training, and technical assistance.

In the West Region, respondents from all nine 

states indicated that their state provided support 

to districts implementing response to intervention, 

varying from funding to technical assistance and 

training (Harr-Robins, Shambaugh, and Parrish 

2009). Just two of the nine states require response 

to intervention for use in identifying students with 

specific learning disabilities.

In the Southeast Region, four of the six states had 

formulated response to intervention models, one 

had developed state policy requiring a three-tier 

model, and three were considering how response 

to intervention could be used in place of or in 

addition to existing procedures regarding eligibility for special education (Sawyer, Holland, and 

Detgen 2008). All six states were planning or 

providing professional development on response to 

intervention.

Model components. According to the National 

Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005, p. 21), implementation of response to 

intervention requires the following:

•	 Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery.

•	 A problem-solving method.

•	 An integrated data collection and assessment 

system to inform decisions at each tier of 

service delivery.

Although these components are common to most 

response to intervention approaches, response to 

intervention is implemented in various ways and 

procedures are not clearly defined (Kavale and 

Spaulding 2008; Scruggs and Mastropieri 2006). 

State education agencies often afford districts 

flexibility in making implementation decisions 

(Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008; Stepanek and 

Peixotto 2009), which results in great variation in 

implementation across states. In the West, Southeast, and Northwest Regions, many states allow 

districts to select their own tools and interventions, set criteria for moving between tiers, and 

determine specifics of progress monitoring (HarrRobins, Shambaugh, and Parrish 2009; Sawyer, 

Holland, and Detgen 2008; Stepanek and Peixotto 

2009).
Tiered intervention. The basic response to intervention model has three tiers (Bradley, Danielson, 

and Doolittle 2005; Compton et al. 2006; Davis, 

Lindo, and Compton 2007). The Response to 

Intervention Action Network (2010b), a program 

of the National Center on Learning Disabilities, 

describes the three tiers as follows:

•	 Tier 1. “All students in Tier 1 receive highquality, scientifically based instruction, differentiated to meet their needs, and are screened 

on a periodic basis to identify struggling 

learners who need additional support.”

•	 Tier 2. “In Tier 2, students not making 

adequate progress in the core curriculum are 

provided with increasingly intensive instruction matched to their needs on the basis of 

levels of performance and rates of progress.”

•	 Tier 3. “At this level, students receive individualized, intensive interventions that target the 

students’ skill deficits for the remediation of 

existing problems and the prevention of more 

severe problems.”

Response to intervention frameworks vary. Schools 

may incorporate two to seven tiers (Berkeley et al. 

2009; Fuchs and Fuchs 2009). Fuchs and Fuchs 

(2009) note that this variation “creates confusion” 

(p. 250) in the design of response to intervention 

models and communication about them.

In determining the length of interventions and criteria for movement across tiers, response to intervention models often assess both the level and the 

rate of skill acquisition (Christ and Hintze 2007), 

as in the dual discrepancy method suggested by 

Fuchs and Fuchs (1998). Hughes and Dexter (2008) 

note, however, that there is no clear consensus 

among researchers on the types of criteria—such 

as cut scores—to use in identifying students who 

need supports in tier 1. States often leave decisions 

about such criteria up to districts and schools.

Problem-solving/standard protocol model. Response to intervention models are generally 

characterized as one of two types, problem solving or standard protocol. Both approaches use 

universal screening, multiple tiers, early intervening services, validated interventions, and student 

progress monitoring to inform decisions. The 

difference between the models is described by the 

IRIS Center (2007): “The problem solving model 

uses interventions, selected by a team, that target 

each student’s individual needs,” and “the standard protocol model uses one consistent intervention, selected by the school, that can address 

multiple students’ needs” (p. 1). A mixed-model 

approach incorporates use of a problem-solving 

model in tiers 1 and 2 while simultaneously using 

standardized interventions to “meet the needs of 

particular types of learners” (Hollenbeck 2007, p. 

140). There are no empirical studies contrasting 

the two approaches. Policy recommendations from 

the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005) suggest that a mixed model 

may be “most desirable” at tier 2 (p. 24).

Data collection and assessment. Monitoring 

student progress through frequent assessments 

and collecting data are an important element 

of response to intervention. Using a case study 

design, Alonzo, Tindal, and Robinson (2008) drew 

on student performance data, interview and focus 

group transcripts, and field observation from three 

elementary schools to examine implementation of 

response to intervention. Their study suggests that 

the use of sensitive progress monitoring assessments as well as the willingness to use the data 

provided by those assessments are key factors in 

implementing response to intervention. A qualitative state study revealed that the most commonly 

used options for screening and monitoring progress are curriculum-based measures, benchmark 

tests, and commercial assessments (Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008). Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) 

suggest the use of a “dual discrepancy” approach 

in screening students that involves the consideration of both performance and learning growth.

Studies of this approach are promising (McMaster 

et al. 2005; Speece and Case 2001). For example, 

a quasi-experimental study conducted by Speece 
30 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

and Case (2001) on the validity of this dual discrepancy approach found that single-point screening was a less accurate and less sensitive indicator 

of reading difficulties. The experimental trial of 

McMaster et al. (2005) indicated that the dual 

discrepancy approach accurately distinguished 

between at-risk and average performer readers.

In a review of universal screening methods, 

Hughes and Dexter (2008) caution that although 

curriculum-based measurements and other 

measures can be helpful tools for monitoring progress, teachers must be adequately trained to use 

assessments effectively. In a terminology guide of 

response to intervention, Fuchs and Fuchs (2009) 

assert that because various assessments will be administered by different personnel across the three 

tiers, it is essential to closely coordinate services 

delivered to a student.

Grades and subjects targeted. As practitioners 

broaden their use of response to intervention 

from elementary to secondary schools, and from 

reading to other subjects, there is a need for 

studies of effectiveness. The majority of research 

studies of response to intervention focus on its 

use in elementary classrooms and with reading 

(Fuchs and Deshler 2007; Mastropieri and Scruggs 

2005); recent state-level studies have shown that 

some states are promoting the use of response to 

intervention in middle and high schools and often 

in mathematics, in writing, and with behavioral 

issues (Harr-Robins, Shambaugh, and Parrish 

2009; Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen 2008). There 

is also a need for studies of response to intervention effectiveness in the middle and upper grades 

(Council for Exceptional Children 2007; Dexter, 

Hughes, and Farmer 2008; Fuchs and Deshler 

2007; National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities 2005; Zirkel and Thomas 2010).

State support for professional development. The 

new roles and responsibilities required of school 

staff as part of response to intervention may 

require professional development for successful implementation of response to intervention. 

A common way that states support districts in 

implementation of response to intervention is 

through professional development. Although the 

literature on the role of professional development 

in response to intervention is not extensive (Bergstrom 2008), recent studies indicate that training 

should be ongoing (Hughes and Dexter 2010). In 

Batsche, Kavale, and Kovaleski (2006, p. 16), a 

dialogue on addressing current issues of response 

to intervention, Kavale suggests that because of 

the new approaches required of educators and the 

importance of implementing scientifically based 

practices with fidelity, “the amount of training 

should not be underestimated.”

In their terminology guide describing the primary, 

secondary, and tertiary interventions of response to 

intervention, Fuchs and Fuchs (2009, p. 251) suggest 

that implementing tier 3 interventions with struggling students requires “highly skilled” instructors. 

A quasi-experimental study on the effects of tiered 

instruction on high school academic performance 

notes that instructors need professional support in 

order to implement differentiation strategies successfully (Richards and Omdal 2007). Many school 

staff will be asked to take on new roles as part of a 

response to intervention system (Batsche et al. 2007; 

National Association of State Directors of Special 

Education 2005); professional development may 

support staff in these new responsibilities.
•	 Does it justify the policy/approach/support (e.g., state laws under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act)?

•	 What are the problems identified? Are 

solutions presented?

•	 Who is promoting this policy? What are 

they promoting (related to RTI)?

Law/regulations/guidance

2. What does this document state about the role 

of RTI in this state? How does RTI relate to 

general education and special education? Is 

RTI required?

Division of responsibilities

3. What is the “lead” agency within each state 

DOE concerning RTI?

4. How are tasks and responsibilities divided 

around RTI? Is it a special education or general education initiative? Which state offices 

are involved in planning and implementation 

of RTI?

RTI models

5. What RTI model is suggested (problem 

solving, standard treatment protocol, or 

hybrid model)? What does it look like? Is it 

mandatory?

Tiered system

6. Is the model a tiered system? If so, what does 

it look like? How many tiers are there, and 

how do they differ?

•	 What should happen in each tier? What 

is the teacher’s (classroom teacher, special 

education teacher, other teachers) role in 

RTI? What interventions are suggested 

and for what purposes? Is there any guidance for how to select interventions?

•	 Are any tools or assessments specified 

(e.g., DIBELS, AIMSweb, ProgressPro)? 

How is the intervention monitored? What 
32 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

types of data are collected? Is it mandatory to collect and report data?

•	 What criteria are used to determine who 

moves up or down the tiers and when?

•	 Is RTI used to determine eligibility for 

special education? How is it determined?

•	 Is RTI fidelity of intervention measured? 

What types of data are collected? Is it 

mandatory to collect and report data?

Untiered system

7. If a tiered system is not suggested, what interventions are suggested? Why? What do they 

look like? Who is responsible for doing them?

Grade level/academic subject

8. What are the targeted grade levels for RTI? 

What academic subjects (reading, math, 

other)? Is RTI mandatory?

Technical support from state to LEAs

9. Are there any SEA supports in connection 

with RTI? (e.g., support to educators in selecting specific models, summer institute, online 

modules)?

Implementation

10. Any mention of a state implementation/scale-up 

plan?

•	 Any mention of how RTI should be implemented and scaled up?

•	 Does the document mention anything 

about actual implementation? Any mention of spread of RTI in the state?

Funding for RTI

11. Is there any mention of how RTI will be 

funded?

POTENTIAL SEA INFORMANTS

12. List names and roles of potential state 

informants.

REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

________________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

________________________________________

_______________________________________
I. Overall approach to RTI/history

1. What were the main reasons/motivating factors for your state in considering/

adopting RTI?

•	 What priority outcomes are targeted 

as a function of RTI in your state?

2. Please describe how your state reached 

the decision to support RTI.

•	 Who were the key players in making 

the decision?

•	 How did you collect feedback or 

opinion from different stakeholders in the process? Were district or 

school level staff involved? Were 

parents involved in the process? If so, 

at what stage?

•	 What were the central issues of 

consideration in deciding to support 

RTI at the state level? Did they vary 

among stakeholders (e.g., general 

education, special education, administrators, teachers, parents)?

II. Infrastructure for RTI at the state level

3. Which departments and/or program 

areas (e.g., special education, general 

education) at the state level are involved 

in RTI? In what ways?

•	 What are these departments’ or 

program areas’ relative roles and 

responsibilities in RTI efforts within 

the state? Who/which program 

areas are responsible, and how are 

they responsible for organizing and 

coordinating RTI at the state and 

local levels?

•	 What/where is the locus of decisionmaking and leadership regarding 

RTI (i.e., between/among departments) at the state level? Who is 

leading the effort?

•	 How do departments work together 

on RTI? What challenges did you 
34 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

find (e.g., communication problems, 

resource sharing, data sharing)?

•	 [If the respondent does not provide 

challenges] What strategies do you 

use to coordinate these departments 

to work on RTI?

4. Does your state have any partners, such 

as a university research team, contractors, 

consultants, or other groups or individuals that have been involved in state-level 

RTI planning or implementation? If so, 

what is the extent of their involvement?

Written policies, regulations, procedures, and/

or guidelines that support/guide RTI development and implementation within the state, 

including at the district and school levels

5. Please describe RTI-related policies, regulations and/or guidelines in your state. 

We found these policies on your state’s 

website [Note: List policies]. Did the state 

modify regulations to implement RTI? If 

so, what is the status of such revisions?

•	 How would you describe the overall approach of these (e.g., highly 

prescriptive)?

•	 What is the state’s role in districtand school-level implementation?

6. Is RTI structured and rolled out as a 

separate program or is it incorporated 

into any other existing programs such as 

Reading First?

•	 What were the major reasons to 

link/incorporate those programs 

together? What were the perceived 

benefits/advantages?

Funding

7. What sources of funds does your state use 

to support the RTI? We found from our 

on line research that XXX funds are used 

to support XXX (e.g., PD, RTI academy,) 

Is this correct? Are there any additional 

funds your state uses to support RTI? 

How are funds allocated?

III. RTI model

8. Briefly describe how your state defines or 

operationalizes key components or elements (e.g., progress monitoring, criteria 

for student movement among tiers) of RTI 

[Note: If state is in the planning stage, ask 

to describe the state’s vision.]

•	 What interventions are provided? 

Are there any specific interventions that your state supports or 

encourages?

•	 What are the instructional options 

(standard protocol, problem-solving, 

or hybrid model)?

•	 How is progress monitored? What 

types of data are collected, how often?

•	 How is the fidelity of intervention 

implementation monitored?

•	 At what stage are special education 

assessments given and determination 

made?

•	 Who will provide the intervention? 

The general education teacher? 

Special education teacher? Reading 

specialist, or anyone else?

•	 How are parents involved in this 

process?

9. [If the state uses a tiered model] Could 

you describe what it looks like?

•	 How many tiers does the RTI model 

have?

•	 How does your state define tier I 

instruction?

•	 Please describe how you ensure and 

maintain the high quality of tier I 

instruction before moving at-risk 

students to upper tiers?

•	 Are there any specific interventions that your state supports or 

encourages?

•	 What were the bases of the decision 

to select specific interventions?
•	 What are instructional options 

(standard protocol, problem solving, 

or hybrid model)?

•	 How is students’ progress monitored? 

What types of data are collected? 

How often?

•	 What are the criteria for moving 

students between tiers?

•	 At what tier are special education assessments given and determinations 

made?

•	 How is fidelity of implementation of 

interventions monitored?

•	 Who provides the intervention at 

each tier? Is it under general education or special education?

•	 What are the bases of the decision to 

select this tiered model (e.g., research 

studies, modeling other states)?

•	 How are parents involved in this 

process?

10. Is response to intervention used in your 

state to determine eligibility for special 

education? Is it required?

•	 Is it total replacement of the IQ–

achievement discrepancy model with 

RTI, or dual discrepancy model?

11. If used but not required to determine eligibility, are there any differences in how 

districts/schools use RTI to determine 

eligibility for special education, and how 

they use it to address the learning needs 

of struggling learners who may not have a 

disability? Please explain.

12. [Only if we find this from our policy 

scan:] Please describe how your state’s 

approach to RTI is used to address the 

learning needs of high achievers.

IV. Current status of RTI

13. Roughly how many districts and/or 

schools in your state are using an RTI 

approach?

•	 Could you describe at what stage 

these districts are with implementation of RTI? Are they pilot districts, 

or are they target schools? [Note: 

Here we want to know these different 

stages of implementation.] What percentage of districts is in each stage?

V. Provision of professional development and 

technical assistance

Professional development provided by or sanctioned by the state

14. Does your state provide professional development that specifically addresses the issues 

related to RTI? What types and how often?

Technical assistance

15. Please describe technical assistance (e.g., 

onsite planning assistance, provision of 

materials) your state receives to support 

RTI. (e.g., federal government’s support to 

the state)

•	 What are the intended outcomes of 

this technical assistance?

16. Please describe what technical assistance 

and support your state provides to LEAs 

and/or schools.

•	 Who is providing it (e.g., state education agencies, local education agencies, or outsourcing it) ?

•	 Who receives it (e.g., school psychologist, general education 

teachers, special education teachers, educational diagnosticians, 

administrators)?

•	 What materials have been developed 

for technical assistance and/or professional development?

•	 What are the intended outcomes of 

the support?

•	 What is the cost of support? How 

long do LEAs and /or state receive the 

support?
36 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

•	 What is the source of funding for this 

support?

VII. Outcomes, supports and barriers

17. What are the key changes that can be 

attributed to RTI in your state? [If datadriven evidence exists: Could you provide 

us with the source of this information? 

Where can we find the report of it?]

18. Are data on impacts related to RTI 

collected and reported? If so, what do 

the data show (e.g., whether rates of 

identification or referrals for special 

education vary after implementing RTI; 

academic achievement of struggling 

learners may be improving?) [Note: 

possible answer will be annual progress 

report, APR, or state performance plan, 

SPP]

19. What conditions appear to support or 

facilitate RTI implementation? [If RTI is 

in the planning stages, what conditions 

do you anticipate will be necessary for 

successful implementation?] [Note: We 

anticipate that states will tell challenges 

of rolling out, while the district will report implementation challenges. We will 

capture the factors in the pilot interview 

and review other REL reports so that we 

have a list of possible factors we can try 

out with the respondents if they did not 

mention.]

20. What are the challenges and barriers to 

RTI implementation?

21. Is there any advice you would like to 

share with other states that are considering implementing RTI?

VII. Identification of districts or schools for 

local-level interviews

22. Our study also involves documenting RTI 

experiences of districts and schools. We are 

interested in districts and/or schools that 

have a relatively high experience level (relative to other districts or schools) with RTI 

implementation. These would not necessarily be districts/schools that are the most 

successful with RTI, but rather the most 

experienced. Could you please provide the 

name of a couple of districts/schools with 

the most RTI experience and that would 

likely be willing to participate in our study?

VIII. Wrap-up

23. What needs does your state have for 

technical assistance, research, or evaluation related to RTI that the REL could 

assist with?

24. Can we contact you in the future if 

we have additional questions or for 

clarification?

Thank you very much for your helpful information. 

At a minimum, we’d like to check in with you prior 

to publishing the report to ensure the information 

is accurate. This will entail sending a write-up of 

your state that will be close to the final version. 

We’ll ask you to read over the document and help 

us address general inaccuracies and/or concerns.
to refer us to someone else for specific information, feel free to let us know.

I. Overall approach to RTI

1. What were the main reasons/motivating 

factors for your district/school in considering/supporting RTI?

•	 Who were the key players in making 

the decision?

•	 How did you collect feedback or 

opinion from different stakeholders 

in the process?

•	 What were the central issues of 

consideration in deciding to support RTI? Did it vary among the 

stakeholders (e.g., general education, 

special education, administrators, 

teachers, parents)?

2. To what extent has the state influenced 

your district’s/school’s decision to consider/support RTI?

II. RTI models

3. How, if at all, has the state influenced 

your district’s/school’s approach and 

implementation of RTI?

•	 Using an adaptation of state RTI 

model (e.g., tier structure, student 

performance monitoring, intervention selection)?

•	 Using state policies, guidelines, or 

procedures?

4. Please describe specific RTI or tiered 

intervention approaches your district/

school uses. [Note: If details on the tiered 

RTI model are available in print form, 

please ask for copies. If district/school is 

using the state model, don’t need to collect details under 4a.

a. Briefly describe how your district/

school defines or operationalizes 

key components or elements (e.g., 
38 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

progress monitoring, criteria for student movement between tiers) of RTI.

•	 How many tiers does your RTI 

model have?

•	 Instructional options (standard 

protocol, problem solving, or 

hybrid model).

•	 Progress monitoring method 

and frequency of data collection.

•	 Monitoring fidelity of intervention implementation.

•	 Who will provide the intervention at each tier (general education teacher, special education 

teacher, reading specialist, etc.)?

•	 Where the interventions are 

provided.

•	 Criteria for moving students 

between tiers.

•	 How and the extent to which 

parents are involved.

b. (If applicable) Why did your district/

school choose this specific model?

•	 What were the bases of the decision to select a specific model 

(e.g., research studies, modeling 

other states)?

c. Is RTI or a tiered intervention approach used for special education 

eligibility determination? If yes, 

please describe.

III. Infrastructure at the local level for RTI

Written guidelines, procedures, or policies that 

support/guide RTI development and implementation within the district or school

5. Are there specific guidelines or procedures your district/school has in place 

related to RTI?

6. If so, could you describe the overall approach of your district’s/school’s guidelines and procedures? For example, what 

parts or components of RTI are required 

of schools/staff and on which parts is flexibility permitted?

Systems integration

7. Could you please describe the roles of 

different district- or school-level staff 

relative to RTI? For example, which types 

of staff are involved in providing services 

within the different tiers? (general education teachers, special education teachers, 

remedial education staff and other practitioners, e.g., school psychologist)?

IV. Professional development, technical assistance, and resources

8. Is there professional development (PD) on 

RTI that is provided to district and school 

staff? Please briefly describe the PD.

•	 Who provides PD?

•	 What is the focus of the PD?

•	 To which types of staff is it provided?

•	 Has your school received PD from 

the state?

9. Have you received any technical assistance (such as on-site planning assistance) from the state? Please briefly 

describe.

10. Does your district/school have external 

partners that are involved in your district/school work on RTI? Please describe.

11. What sources of funds has your district/

school used to support RTI?

V. Lessons learned

12. In your district’s/school’s experience, 

what factors would you say facilitate the 

adoption of RTI?

13. What would you say have been/are the 

main challenges your district/school has 
dealt with? And how has your district/

school addressed these?

14. Is there any advice you’d like to share 

with other districts/schools that are considering an RTI approach?

VI. Wrap-up

15. What needs does your district/school 

have for technical assistance, research or 

evaluation related to RTI that our REL 

might be able to assist with?

16. Can we contact you in the future if 

we have additional questions or for 

clarification?

Thank you very much for your helpful information. At a minimum, we’d like to check in with 

you prior to publishing the report to ensure the 

information is accurate. This will entail sending a 

brief write-up of your district/school that will be 

close to a final version. We’ll ask you to read over 

the specific parts of the document and help us 

ensure that the information is accurate.
40 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Table f1 

Response to intervention policies for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State/feature description

illinois

policy illinois was awarded a state personnel development grant from the u.S. department of education office 

development/ of Special education ($1.85 million a year) for 2005–10. The purpose of this grant was to improve district 

background capacity to provide early intervention services. illinois used the grant to develop its alliance for Schoolbased problem-solving and intervention resources in education (aSpire) initiative, which involved five 

pilot projects. The aSpire project was led by the state’s special education department. in July 2007 a new 

state superintendent shifted the leadership of response to intervention so that the program is now jointly 

led by the special and general education departments.

State education agency staff attended the response to intervention summit in december 2007, which 

encouraged staff to think about response to intervention in illinois. discussions about the initiative 

involved a collaborative process that included diverse stakeholders, such as parent groups, special 

education teachers, the teachers union, and the state board of education.

policy illinois required schools to include response to intervention in their school improvement plan beginning 

in 2009/10. it requires schools to use response to intervention for special education determination 

beginning in 2010/11.

model illinois promotes a three-tier, problem-solving model. evidence-based decisionmaking is conducted by 

determining whether a student’s response to an intervention is “positive,” “questionable,” or “poor,” as 

measured by progress monitoring data. The state does not prescribe how core elements of response to 

intervention should be implemented locally, establish criteria for moving students up or down tiers, or 

identify specific interventions or assessments to be used. assessments are used for screening, diagnosis, 

and progress monitoring. no specific information is provided about when and how often screening 

should occur. intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff. fidelity of 

implementation was measured as part of the aSpire initiative.

academic behavior and all academic subjects, at all grade levels.

subject/grade 

level

professional The regional superintendent offices provide training sessions on response to intervention. The state 

development provides face-to-face technical assistance to people who work with school improvement and district 

and technical improvement plans. it is developing 13 modules on response to intervention. regional education offices 

assistance will provide in-person training based on these modules in summer 2011.

provided by state 

to districts and 

schools

iowa

policy iowa has been using a problem-solving model in special education since the late 1980s. in the early 1990s, 

development/ general education teachers began using a problem-solving model with students who were struggling. 

background after the president’s commission on excellence on Special education report (Kennedy 2004) was released, 

the state brought together about 40 people (from both general and special education) to develop a tiered 

initiative, called instructional decision making. in developing this model, the state incorporated research 

on reading and on positive behavioral interventions and supports. it received support from the national 

center on response to intervention. a committee of 80 educators reviewed the instructional decision 

making plan. The initiative is overseen by both the general and special education departments.

(conTinued)
Table f1 (conTinued) 

Response to intervention policies for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State/feature description

policy iowa requires that response to intervention be used (in conjunction with other sources of data) to 

determine a student’s eligibility for special education. it does not require instructional decision making for 

general education. Some districts are using response to intervention only to evaluate eligibility for special 

education.

model instructional decision making uses both a problem-solving and a standard protocol approach. it is a tiered 

system with three “cycles”: core, supplemental, and intensive. research- and evidence-based interventions 

are to be used in all cycles. Three forms of assessments—screening, diagnostic, and formative—are also 

required. Screening is administered three times a year. Student progress is monitored frequently, and 

decisions concerning movement between cycles are made by comparing students’ achievement with 

that of their peers. The state does not prescribe specific assessments but provides indicators for quality 

assessments (for example, is the assessment technically adequate? is it aligned to the district curriculum?). 

The state does not prescribe specific interventions or specify who should provide them.

academic behavior and all academic subjects, at all grade levels.

subject/grade 

level

professional The state provides online guidance to assist schools in implementing instructional decision making. 

development rather than working directly with schools or districts, the state provides training to staff of area education 

and technical agencies, who work with local districts supporting local implementation. The state organizes teams 

assistance of reading consultants that review research on reading and reading strategies. This research informs 

provided by state professional development.

to districts and State coaches are assigned to two to three area education agencies. These coaches assist area education schools agency coaches, who in turn work directly with districts and schools. The area education agency coaches 

provide technical support to assist schools in implementing interventions with fidelity.

michigan

policy michigan’s integrated behavior and learning Support initiative is funded through an individuals with 

development/ disabilities education act mandated activities project and a state personnel development grant. at the 

background time the state applied for the grant, a few demonstration sites were implementing positive behavioral 

interventions and supports and reading support. The grant specified that the state should use a model 

based on research in both areas. initially, the office of Special education took the lead in crafting the 

proposal, although the state was interested in improving the academic performance of all students. The 

grant requires cross-departmental collaboration in leading the effort. The office of School improvement 

became part of the leadership team for the initiative in michigan. The state worked with national experts on 

positive behavioral interventions and supports and response to intervention in creating michigan’s model.

policy michigan’s initiative is a nonmandatory response to intervention model for general education. Schools 

must apply to take part in the initiative and then implement it schoolwide in reading and behavior. 

Schools need not use the initiative to determine eligibility for special education; use of the model for that 

purpose varies by district. michigan’s initiative provides guidelines to participating schools; its website 

provides information to all schools.

model michigan’s initiative is a mixed model, incorporating both the problem-solving and standard protocol 

approaches. The three-tiered model aims to strengthen universal instruction. it uses evidence-based 

practice, progress monitoring, and data-based decisions. State guidance specifies that interventions 

should be provided for about 30–60 minutes to students who are struggling. Second-tier interventions 

should be given for 10–20 weeks. Third-tier interventions are highly specific; students at this level 

may need several months or years of intervention. guidelines do not specify who should provide the 

interventions.

Student performance is measured through screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome 

measures. Screening is typically performed three times a year to identify a student’s performance level 

and instructional needs for the school year. diagnostic measures are conducted as needed.

participating schools are required to set up accounts and use database systems, such as dynamic 

indicators of basic early literacy Skills, aimSweb, and Schoolwide information Systems (SWiS).

(conTinued)
42 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Table f1 (conTinued) 

Response to intervention policies for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State/feature description

academic reading and behavior, at all grade levels.

subject/grade 

level

professional Schools participating in michigan’s initiative receive standardized training in research on response to 

development intervention, positive behavioral interventions and supports, reading instruction, and use of data, including 

and technical how to use universal screening. To take part in the initiative, schools must partner with an intermediate 

assistance school district, a regional entity that represents a cluster of districts or individual schools, and identify a coach. 

provided by state The state trains and hosts meetings for these coaches, who then work with schools. Technical assistance is 

to districts and provided through regional facilitators. School implementation teams and coaches attend state conferences.

schools

minnesota

policy minnesota has a history of using the problem-solving model for special education. in 2008 it received 

development/ a state personnel development grant to work with the center for State implementation and Scaling 

background up of evidence-based practice, for which the state created minnesota’s common principles of effective 

practice, an integrated framework of common effective practices from dropout prevention, response to 

intervention, reading first, and positive behavioral interventions and supports. in the process of developing 

this framework, minnesota worked with nationally known experts in positive behavioral interventions 

and supports, special education, and response to intervention. The grant required cross-departmental 

involvement; the framework development was led by both general and special education. minnesota was 

also interested in using response to intervention as a way to help schools make adequate yearly progress.

policy minnesota does not promote a response to intervention initiative. response to intervention is not 

required to determine eligibility for special education, although some districts use it for this purpose.

model The state provides some general guidance on response to intervention online, including a technical 

manual, determining the eligibility of Students with Specific learning disabilities. documents online 

describe response to intervention as a problem-solving model with a three-tiered system; they also 

discuss using progress monitoring to gauge students’ response to interventions and screening students 

two or more times a year in order to target instruction. The state does not specify interventions or 

assessments to be used, although it does suggest functional behavior assessment as a possible means to 

measure student behavioral needs.

academic behavior and all academic subjects, at all grade levels.

subject/grade 

level

professional eight pilot sites are implementing response to intervention practices. The sites, which receive coaching 

development and tools from the state, will share their experiences with the state in order to inform technical assistance 

and technical needs and content areas.

assistance 

provided by state 

to districts and 

schools

ohio

policy ohio does not have a state response to intervention policy. a related initiative, the ohio improvement 

development/ process, was developed to support districts in responding to no child left behind requirements and 

background improving student achievement. The ohio improvement process is a decision framework that promotes 

continuous improvement and focuses on student performance data. The state received a state personnel 

development grant for this initiative.

policy The state supports but does not require the use of response to intervention for determining eligibility 

for special education. The regulations use the federal language from the individuals with disabilities 

education act; they do not mention response to intervention specifically. The state operating standards 

provide general guidance on how response to intervention is typically implemented. The state does not 

prescribe how to implement it. for the ohio improvement process, the state provides guidance on how 

district- and building-level teams should analyze student performance data.

(conTinued)
Table f1 (conTinued) 

Response to intervention policies for six Midwest Region states, 2009/10

State/feature description

model none.

academic not applicable.

subject/grade 

level

professional The state works with universities, which provide preservice and inservice training to teachers on response 

development to intervention to ensure that there is a common understanding of what the approach means.

and technical 

assistance 

provided by state 

to districts and 

schools

Wisconsin

policy discussion about response to intervention was initiated by the special education department, which was 

development/ concerned about aligning special education policy with the language of the individuals with disabilities 

background education act 2004. at the same time, the state department of education became concerned about 

an achievement gap. general and special education came together, convening a group of various 

stakeholders through the State Superintendent’s collaborative council. Together they created Wisconsin’s 

vision of response to intervention: “a process for achieving higher levels of academic and behavioral 

success for all students” (Wisconsin department of public instruction, 2010a, p. 1).

policy a state document—“Wisconsin response to intervention roadmap: a model for academic and 

behavioral Success for all Students using culturally responsive practice” (Wisconsin department of public 

instruction (2010d)—defines and provides a framework for response to intervention in Wisconsin. Specific 

implementation strategies, such as assessment tools to be used and intervention provided, are local-level 

decisions. response to intervention is not required for determining eligibility for special education.

model The state defines response to intervention as “a process for achieving higher levels of academic and 

behavioral success for all students through high quality instruction, continuous review of student progress 

and collaboration” (Wisconsin department of public instruction, 2010a, p. 1). The roadmap states that all 

students should receive high-quality, differentiated, culturally responsive core academic and behavioral 

instruction as well as universal screening. based on universal screening results, teachers determine 

whether students are likely to not meet, meet, or exceed benchmarks. Students who are not likely to meet 

benchmarks are provided with interventions that meet with their needs; students who are likely to exceed 

benchmarks are provided with additional challenges. The state does not specify the number of tiers or 

prescribe interventions or assessment tools. educators at the local level collaborate to make decisions 

about interventions and assessment tools.

academic behavior and all academic subjects, at all grade levels.

subject/grade 

level

professional The state is establishing a response to intervention center to provide professional development. The 

development roadmap on the state education department website is a resource for districts and schools. To assist 

and technical districts in assessing readiness to implement response to intervention, the state developed a district selfassistance assessment tool.

provided by state 

to districts and 

schools

Source: Information came from interviews with state officials and the following studies: Illinois: Cullen and Hanselman 2008; Hanselman and Cullen 2008; 

Illinois State Board of Education n.d. Iowa: Iowa Department of Education 2006, 2007. Michigan: Flanagan 2008; McGlinchey and Metcalf 2009; Michigan 

Department of Education n.d. a. Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Education 2010b. Ohio: Graden et al. 2008; Ohio Department of Education n.d., 2010. 

Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction n.d., 2010a, 2010c , 2010d, 2010e.
44 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Table g1 

features of response to intervention models in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin

State and model Type of model interventions data-based decisionmaking

illinois problem solving interventions at each tier are intervention plans should be developed 

response to 

intervention

with three tiers selected based on problem 

identification, problem analysis, 

based on student need and staff skills. 

The student intervention plan is a single 

intervention development, and document that is integrated across tiers. Tier 

response to intervention. They 2 and tier 3 interventions are used to ensure 

are scientific and research based. that student’s outcome at tier 1 improves. 

all staff are available to provide The tier level is raised until a positive 

interventions at each tier. response to intervention is identified.

Student progress is monitored to identify 

whether the intervention is effective. State 

guidelines indicate following actions:

•	 positive response (gap is closing, can 

extrapolate the point at which student 

will come in range of peers, even if goal 

is long range): continue intervention until 

student reaches benchmark (at least); 

fade intervention to determine if student 

has acquired functional independence.

•	 Questionable response (rate at which gap 

is widening slows considerably, but gap is 

still widening or gap stops widening but 

closure does not occur): increase intensity 

of intervention for a short period of 

time and assess impact. if rate improves, 

continue. if rate does not improve, return 

to problem solving.

•	 poor response (gap continues to widen, 

with no change in rate): return to 

problem solving for a new intervention.

(conTinued)
Table g1 (conTinued) 

features of response to intervention models in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin

State and model Type of model interventions data-based decisionmaking

iowa mixed (problem •	 core cycle: more than 80 percent at all three cycles, screening, diagnostic, 

solving and of students become proficient and formative assessment and progress instructional 

standard protocol) following provision of research- monitoring are to be used. information from decision making with three cycles based, differentiated instruction. screening identifies students in need of 

(tiers) more assessment. diagnostic assessments •	 Supplemental cycle: students are conducted to determine instructional who are not proficient at and behavioral needs. formative core cycle are provided with assessments involve comparing student supplemental cycle. progress in response to intervention with •	 intensive cycle: students who past performance, comparing progress are not proficient at core or to expected performance, and assessing supplemental cycle are provided whether the student is responding to with intensive cycle. curriculum and instruction.

in all three cycles, research-based The decision to discontinue the 

and evidence-based strategies and supplemental or intensive cycle is made by research-based instruction are used. comparing a student’s performance with 

an individual plan is created for that of students in the core cycle. formative 

students who receive supplemental assessment and progress monitoring data, 

and intensive cycles, which are district screening data, and observation 

offered to students who are not data are used to determine whether student 

proficient in the core cycle as well as improvement is within the range of most 

students who are beyond proficient. core cycle students.

for students who are beyond 

proficient, the supplemental and 

intensive cycles are offered in place 

of the core cycle. Students who are 

not proficient receive supplemental 

or intensive cycle interventions in 

addition to the core cycle.

michigan mixed (problem a three-tiered system links Screening, diagnostic assessments, progress 

michigan’s 

integrated 

behavior and 

solving and research-based practices to monitoring, and outcome assessments 

protocol) with student information and data in the are used. assessment system should be 

three tiers following ways: continuous and flexible. Screening measures 

learning Support 

initiative (miblSi)

are used with all students, typically three •	 universal level: instruction for all 

times a year, to assist staff in identifying the students.

level of performance and instructional needs •	 Secondary level: instruction by for the school year. 40 percent of students, usually, diagnostic measures are used as needed over a period of 10–20 weeks. to provide additional information on intervention focuses on specific reading performance and assist teachers skills to reduce risk of academic 

in problem solving when student or behavior problems. performance in reading is less than desired. •	 Tertiary level: highly specific progress monitoring measures are used instruction, received by to guide the effectiveness of reading 20 percent of students. intervention programs as well as assist individualized intervention is teachers in moving students across reading designed to meet a student’s instructional groups. outcome measures specific needs. Students may (for example, the michigan educational need this level of support for assessment program, the iowa Test of basic several months or years. Skills) are used to help gather information on 

system outcomes in reading.

(conTinued)
46 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Table g1 (conTinued) 

features of response to intervention models in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin

State and model Type of model interventions data-based decisionmaking

Wisconsin mixed (problem all students receive differentiated collaboration, results monitoring, and 

solving/standard core instruction. based on universal a balanced assessment system are the response to protocol) screening, students who are not elements of data-based decisionmaking. The intervention 

likely to meet benchmarks receive state model states that educators should roadmap interventions based on student monitor student progress to determine if 

need; students who are likely the intervention and challenge are effective. 

to exceed benchmarks receive as students receive more interventions 

additional challenges based on and challenges, both the intensity of result 

student need. The state does monitoring and collaboration among 

not specify how an intervention educators increase.

should be identified; it indicates Student progress should be reviewed using that the process of decisionmaking multiple measures, through collaboration should involve collaboration among educators. Screening and formative, among educators. The state does benchmark, and summative assessments not specify who should provide should be conducted with all students. 

interventions for students who do progress in response to intervention is not meet or exceed benchmarks. measured for all students who do not meet 

or exceed benchmarks. The state does not 

specify how progress monitoring should be 

conducted.

Source: Interviews with state officials and review of the following documents: Illinois State Board of Education n.d.; Iowa Department of Education 2007; 

Michigan Department of Education n.d. a, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 2010a, 2010e.
research as well as on the research on “effective schools and teachers and successful 

school reform in which school staff work 

toward becoming a collaborative, learning 

community.” See www.mnreadingfirst.org/

Presentations/RERFReport.pdf.

5. The study team was unable to determine 

whether Ohio provides technical assistance on 

response to intervention to districts. Ohio is 

therefore not included in this discussion.

6. Districts are permitted to use no more than 

15 percent of their Part B funds to develop 

and implement early intervening services for 

children in K–12.

7. Outcome data for Michigan’s program are 

available at http://miblsi.cenmi.org/About/

ProjectOutcomes.aspx.

8. The original research proposal included additional search terms (see appendix B). They 

were not ultimately used because the team 

obtained sufficient information using these 

three terms.
48 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

RefeRenceS

Ahearn, E.M. (2009). State eligibility requirements for 

specific learning disabilities. Communication Disorders 

Quarterly, 30(2), 120–128.

Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., and Robinson, Q. (2008). Using 

schoolwide response to intervention to close the 

achievement gap in reading. ERS Spectrum, 26(1), 1–9.

Batsche, G.M. (2007, September). Problem solving and response to intervention: sustaining the effort. Presentation to Central ASPIRE, Peoria, IL. Retrieved October 

25, 2010, from http://www.illinoisaspire.org/welcome/

download.php?dID=38.

Batsche, G.M., Curtis, M.J., Dorman, C., Castillo, J.M., 

and Porter, L.J. (2007). The Florida problem-solving/

response to intervention model: implementing a 

statewide initiative. In S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and 

A.M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to 

intervention: the science and practice of assessment and 

intervention. New York: Springer.

Batsche, G.M., Kavale, K.A., and Kovaleski, J.F. (2006). 

Competing views: a dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 6–19.

Bergstrom, M.K. (2008). Professional development in response 

to intervention: implementation of a model in a rural 

region. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 27–36.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W.N., Gregg-Peaster, L., and Saunders, 

L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: 

a snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 

42(1), 85–95.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., and Doolittle, J. (2005). Response 

to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 

485–486.

Brown-Chidsey, R., and Steege, M.W. (2005). Response to 

intervention: principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Christ, T.J., and Hintze, J.M. (2007). Psychometric considerations when evaluating response to intervention. In 

S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and A.M. VanDerHeyden 

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: the science and practice of assessment and intervention. New 

York: Springer.

Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Bryant, J.D. 

(2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early 

intervention: a two-year longitudinal study of decision 

rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394–409.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). Thinking about 

response to intervention and learning disabilities: a 

teacher’s guide. Alexandria, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Cullen, M., and Hanselman, E. (2008). The state and district 

RTI plans [Presentation]. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.isbe.net/RTI_plan/rti_plan.pdf.

Davis, G.N., Lindo, E.J., and Compton, D.L. (2007). Children at risk for reading failure: constructing an early 

screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 

39(5), 32–37.

Dexter, D.D., Hughes, C.A., and Farmer, T.W. (2008).

Responsiveness to intervention: a review of field studies and implications for rural special education. Rural 

Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 3–9.

Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.

Flanagan, M. (2008). Presentation on response-to-intervention [Memorandum]. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/

Item_A_254706_7.pdf.

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., 

Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., Shaywitz, S.E., and Shaywitz, 

B.A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: an 

evidenced-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, and D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning 

disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fuchs, D., and Deshler, D.D. (2007). What we need to know 

about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t 
be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and 

Practice, 22(2), 129–136.

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. (2009). Responsiveness to intervention: multilevel assessment and instruction as early 

intervention and disability identification. Reading 

Teacher, 63(3), 250–252.

Fuchs, L.S., and Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: a 

unifying concept for reconceptualizing identification 

of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research 

and Practice, 13(4), 204–219.

Gerber, M.M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: limitations 

of response to instruction strategies for identifying 

children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning 

Disabilities, 38(6), 516–524.

Graden, J., Winston, M.L., Bunte, S., Tolliver, S., Kobayashi, 

M., Bower, K., Martin, C., and Murphy, B. (2008). 

Response to instruction and intervention (RTI): a 

framework for improving the performance of all students 

[Presentation]. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://

education.ohio.gov/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=56407.

Griffiths, A., Parson, L.B., Burns, M.K., VanDerHeyden, 

A., and Tilly, W.D. (2007). Response to intervention: research for practice. Alexandria, VA: National 

Association of State Directors of Special Education. 

Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://nasdse.org/

Portals/0/Documents/Download%20Publications/

PNA-0776.pdf.

Hanselman, E., and Cullen, M. (2008). Writing the response 

to intervention (RTI) district plan [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.isbe.

state.il.us/RTI_plan/rti_district_presentation9-08.ppt.

Harr-Robins, J.J., Shambaugh, L.S., and Parrish, T. (2009).

The status of state-level response to intervention policies and procedures in the West Region states and five 

other states (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009–077). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional 

Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved November 5, 

2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west/

pdf/REL_2009077.pdf.

Hollenbeck, A.F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: a 

discussion of foundational and future responsivenessto-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research 

and Practice, 22(2), 137–146.

Hoover, J.J., Baca, L., Wexler-Love, E., and Saenz, L. 

(2008). National implementation of response to 

intervention (RTI): research summary. Boulder, 

CO: University of Colorado–Boulder, School of 

Education, BUENO Center. Retrieved November 

5, 2010, from http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/

NationalImplementationofRTI-ResearchSummary.pdf.

Hsieh, H., and Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to 

qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

Hughes, C., and Dexter, D.D. (2008). Universal screening 

within a response-to-intervention model. Washington, DC: National Center for Learning Disabilities, 

RTI Action Network. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/

universal-screening-within-a-rti-model.

Hughes, C., and Dexter, D.D. (2010). Field studies of RTI 

programs, revised. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Learning Disabilities, RTI Action Network. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.rtinetwork.

org/learn/research/field-studies-rti-programs.

IDEA Partnership. (2007). Response to intervention and 

SLD identification [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://www.ideapartnership.

org/documents/RTI-advanced-ppt-7-30-07.ppt.

IDEA Partnership. (2010). Response to intervention: key 

terms. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://

ideapartnership.org/media/documents/RTI-Collection/

rti_glossary.pdf.

Illinois State Board of Education. (n.d.). Illinois ASPIRE. 

Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education. 

Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.

illinoisaspire.org/welcome/.
50 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

Illinois State Board of Education. (2008). Illinois state 

response to intervention (RTI) plan. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education. Retrieved November 5, 

2010, from http://www.isbe.net/pdf/rti_state_plan.pdf.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 

of 2004. (2004). Pub. L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647. 

Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://frwebgate.

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_

public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf.

Iowa Department of Education. (2006). Special education 

eligibility standards. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from 

http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_

docman&task=doc_download&gid=2097.

Iowa Department of Education. (2007). Instructional 

decision making (IDM). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from 

http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_

docman&task=doc_download&gid=3840.

IRIS Center. (2007). Two approaches to response to intervention (RTI) (dialogue guide). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt 

University, Peabody College, IRIS Center. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://www.rti4success.org/

images/stories/two_approaches_1.pdf.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., and Byrd, S.E. (2006). Challenges 

with SLD identification: what is the SLD problem? Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 3(1). Retrieved November 

5, 2010, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.

cgi?article=1253&context=education/tecplus.

Kame’enui, E.J. (2007). A new paradigm: responsiveness 

to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 

6–7. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.

centeroninstruction.org/files/TEC-vol.39no.52007.pdf.

Kavale, K.A., and Spaulding, L.S. (2008). Is response to 

intervention good policy for specific learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(4), 

169–179.

Kennedy, E. (Ed.). (2004). President’s Commission on 

Excellence in Special Education: Hearing before the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate. Darby, PA: Diane.

Kovaleski, J.F. (2007). Potential pitfalls of response to 

intervention. In S.R. Jimerson, M.K. Burns, and 

A.M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to 

intervention: the science and practice of assessment and 

intervention. New York: Springer.

Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness 

to intervention: prevention outcomes and learning 

disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning 

Disabilities, 38(6), 539–544.

Mastropieri, M.A., and Scruggs, T.E. (2005). Feasibility and 

consequences of response to intervention: examination of issues and scientific evidence as a model for the 

identification of individuals with learning disabilities. 

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525–531.

McGlinchey, M., and Metcalf, T. (2009). Scaling up response 

to intervention in Michigan [PowerPoint presentation]. 

Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.cenmi.

org/Portals/3/Documents/Additional%20Resources/

MiBLSi%20Presentations/Scaling%20Up%20RTI%20

in%20Michigan.ppt.

McMaster, K.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Compton, D.L. 

(2005). Responding to nonresponders: an experimental 

field trial of identification and intervention methods. 

Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.

Michigan Department of Education. (n.d. a). Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://miblsi.cenmi.org/.

Michigan Department of Education. (n.d. b). Michigan’s 

Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative: 

MiBLSi application process. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved November 

5, 2010, from http://miblsi.cenmi.org/Questions/

ApplicationProcess.aspx.

Michigan Department of Education. (n.d. c). Michigan’s 

Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative: Reading: Assessment. Lansing, MI: Michigan 
Department of Education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.miblsi.cenmi.org/MiBLSiModel/

Implementation/ElementarySchools/TierISupports/

Assessment.aspx.

Minnesota Department of Education. (2010a). Common principles of effective practice (CPEP). Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of Education. 

Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://education.

state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/Dropout/documents/

Publication/016260.pdf.

Minnesota Department of Education. (2010b). Determining the eligibility of students with specific learning 

disabilities. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of 

Education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://

children.state.mn.us/MDE/Learning_Support/

Special_Education/Categorical_Disability_Information/

Specific_Learning_Disabilities/index.html.

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

Association of State Directors of Special Education.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010a). Essential components of RTI—a closer look at response 

to intervention. Washington, DC: National Center on 

Response to Intervention. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.rti4success.org/images/stories/pdfs/

rtiessentialcomponents_042710.pdf.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010b). RTI 

state database. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from 

http://state.rti4success.org/.

National High School Center, National Center on Response 

to Intervention, and Center on Instruction. (2010). 

Tiered interventions in high schools: using preliminary 

“lessons learned” to guide ongoing discussion. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://www.betterhighschools.

org/pubs/documents/HSTII_LessonsLearned.pdf.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading 

Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based 

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports 

of the subgroups. (NIH Publication No. 00-4574). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). 

Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. 

Arlington, VA: National Joint Committee on Learning 

Disabilities. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://

www.ldanatl.org/pdf/rti2005.pdf.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2005). 

Responsiveness to intervention in the SLD determination process. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center 

on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/pdf/

RTI_SLD.pdf.

Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP): toward a unified state 

system of support. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, 

from http://www.cositpd.org/WORD%20Docs/

OIP_TowardUnifedSystemofSupport.doc.

Ohio Department of Education. (2010). Procedures and 

guidance for Ohio education agencies serving children 

with disabilities. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of 

Education. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://

www.edresourcesohio.org/ogdse/6_-_evaluation/6-7/

document.

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2010). [Home page]. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://www.pbis.org/default.aspx.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation 

methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Richards, M.R.E., and Omdal, S.N. (2007). Effects of tiered 

instruction on academic performance in a secondary 

science course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 

424–453.

RTI Action Network. (2010a). Glossary. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/glossary? 

task=list&glossid=1&letter=All.
52 STaTe policieS and procedureS on reSponSe To inTervenTion in The midWeST region

RTI Action Network. (2010b). Tiered instruction/intervention. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.

rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction.

Sawyer, R., Holland, D., and Detgen, A. (2008). State policies and procedures and selected local implementation 

practices in response to intervention in the six Southeast 

Region states (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008–

063). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center 

for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/

regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2008063.pdf.

Scruggs, T.E., and Mastropieri, M.A. (2006). Response to 

“Competing views: a dialogue on response to intervention.” Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 62–64.

Speece, D.L., and Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: 

an alternative approach to identifying early reading 

disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 

735–749.

Stepanek, J., and Peixotto, K. (2009). Models of response to 

intervention in the Northwest Region states (Issues & 

Answers Report, REL 2009–079). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/pdf/

REL_2009079.pdf.

Vaughn, S., and Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning 

disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: the 

promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities 

Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146.

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.

ewenger.com/theory/.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Response to intervention (RTI): how can we make it work 

in Wisconsin? [PowerPoint presentation]. Madison, 

WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 

Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://dpi.wi.gov/rti/

ppt/rti_intro.ppt.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010a). Frequently asked questions about response to intervention 

(RTI). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public 

Instruction. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://

www.dpi.state.wi.us/rti/pdf/rti-faq.pdf.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010b). 

Responsive education for all children. Madison, WI: 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.reachwi.

com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=

250&Itemid=1.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010c). 

State of Wisconsin state performance plan: 2005–2006 

through 2010–2011. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved November 5, 

2010, from http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/completespp.pdf.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010d).Wisconsin response to intervention roadmap: a model for 

academic and behavioral success for all students using 

culturally responsive practices. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved 

November 5, 2010, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/rti/

index.html.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010e). Wisconsin response to intervention (RTI) self-assessment for 

schools and districts. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved November 5, 

2010, from http://dpi.wi.gov/rti/pdf/rtiselfassess.pdf.

Zirkel, P.A., and Krohn, N. (2008). RTI after IDEA: a survey 

of state laws. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 

71–73.

Zirkel, P.A., and Thomas, L.B. (2010). State laws for RTI: 

an updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 

42(3), 56–63.