Search

In this paper, I critically examine the discourse surrounding response to intervention (RTI), a US-based education reform that has garnered a considerable amount of attention (as well as controversy) in a very short amount of time. A multi-pronged reform effort, RTI is a tiered approach to delivering instructional intervention to students at risk, an on-going and systematic model of monitoring student performance, as well as an alternative to the ability/achievement discrepancy model for identifying learning disabilities. In this paper, I argue, however, that RTI is not so much a reform but a tactic, aimed at returning to the status quo of segregated special education and reinvigorating many of the foundational assumptions of traditional special education practice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The United States (U.S.) Department of Education reports that the range for all students with disabilities included for at least 80% of the day in the general education classroom in different states is between 83.6% and 36.9%. Such a range also exists for individual disability groups. While other studies have noted these differences, none have attempted to determine factors associated with them. In the present study, using the 50 states as subjects, extant data sources were used to determine correlations between the percent of three groups of students included for at least 80% of the day in each state, and key state variables representing states' political leanings, educational levels, financial conditions, and formal complaints as allowed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. 2004). Also analyzed was the relationship between states' educational achievements and levels of inclusion. Findings are reported in terms of correlations between the variables and the variance accounted for in inclusion by different variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The key elements of inclusive practices in the USA are examined through the lens of research from around the world. Pull-out and schoolwide programming are discussed, as well as membership and ability grouping. Student outcomes and student achievement studies are reviewed, and recommendations are made for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]