Talk:Response to Intervention

message: Hi,
Someone changed the categories for this article to Childhood Psychiatric disorders and Special education.  I agree with the Special Education category.  I don't understand why the Childhood Psychiatric disorder category should be applied, nor do I understand why the Education and Learning disability categories are not appropriate.   
Can you give me some more information about the thinking behind the changes?  
Here is a summary of why I inserted the categories as I did:  
+ RTI is an academic intervention method (hence the education category)
+ Designed to provide early intervention for all children having difficulty (the assumption is that they have not been diagnosed with a LD)
+ At the end of which some children are identified as having a learning disability and referred for special education (hence the LD category and special education category)
Best,
Rosmoran 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

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

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

message: Hi,
I added a section "Relationship between IDEA and RTI".
Yorktown1781 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not intentional. I was trying to undo an old edit unrelated to your addition, and must've performed a full revert, instead. I have no position on the text. Dancter (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship between IDEA and RTI

message: I take issue with the following excerpt from the articles, placed in bold (What follows is an opinion from a person with 30 years experience in the public school system: 
This person needs to be named and their credentials made explicit. 30 years in the public school system could mean anything from being a county superintendent to being a very, very poor student. Someone needs to either establish the person's qualifications (or lack thereof) or risk having this section omitted. 
INTERNwiki (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Credibility

message: This section on the criticism of RTI seems flawed:
However, it should be noted that public schools tend to receive more federal and state dollars the more students they identify as qualifying for special education. That said, RTI would if anything delay receipt of funding at the school level. Therefore the above criticism may stem from misinformation.
Wouldn't this suggest that federal and state governments have an economic incentive to promote RTI in ways that validate the prior points, and therefore the the comment that this criticism "may stem from misinformation" represents both bias and flawed logic.
Mrviles (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed Logic?

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

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

message: Okay, so this article needs some major major work! I've started a couple big revisions, which have involved cutting out lots of words. Much more needs to be done, though...and I'll be checking to see if the cut material can be integrated elsewhere (as it was, there was way too much in the introduction). Tim D (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked through a few overhauls so far (although there's still more to be done), but if you look at the history, it's hard to see what specific changes were made. If anyone wants to discuss any issues, please let me know! Tim D (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fixing 

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

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Response to intervention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.cssponline.org/attachments/GreshamCommuniqueRTI.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kieramalley (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: EDFN 508 Introduction to Research