For nearly 10 years, the response-to-intervention (RTI) policy initiative has engendered enthusiasm at federal, state, and local levels and among various stakeholders. Nevertheless, there are basic and important disagreements about its nature and purpose. The authors describe two groups with contrasting perspectives on RTI in an effort to examine its multiple meanings, to argue that neither group has a credible plan to educate children and youth with severe learning needs, and to encourage all interested parties to think productively about what they want to accomplish in the name of RTI.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 384 citations exist upstream.