Response to intervention (RTI) can be considered an everyday practice in many parts of the United States, whereas, in Finland, only recently has a new framework for support in learning taken shape. Choosing Finland as the comparative partner for this policy paper is justified as its educational system has been widely referenced on the basis of good Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results. The results of the present comparative article showed first, that the U.S. RTI was primarily intended for diagnosing and preventing learning disabilities whereas the Finnish RTI is mainly an administrative structure for support. Second, the U.S. RTI includes clear definitions regarding the intensity, duration, and content of support provided within each tier whereas the Finnish version contains no explicit guidelines for support. Third, the U.S. RTI assumes no special educational services in the first two tiers, but the Finnish framework includes special educational services from the onset of support. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 117 citations exist upstream.