Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500 DOI 10.1007/s10643-010-0372-6

What Does RTI (Response to Intervention) Look Like in Preschool? Mojdeh Bayat • Gayle Mindes • Sheryl Covitt

Published online: 12 February 2010
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract This paper examines the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) in early childhood programs, more specifically in preschool settings. The paper proposes that RTI in preschool could focus on alleviating risk factors as it relates to social emotional competence, and reduction of challenging behaviors during early childhood years. A case-study in which RTI is used for challenging behaviors of a child is examined. Further, recommendations for practice in application of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) in preschool are made. Keywords Response to Intervention (RTI)
Challenging behaviors
Preschool
Positive Behavior Support (PBS)
Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA)

Introduction Response to Intervention (RTI) dominates most scholarly and non-scholarly conversations in education today. In an annual survey RTI is rated as one of the ‘‘very hot’’ topics in education during 2008 and 2009, pushing other topics such as early intervention and preschool literacy outside the focus of attention (Cassidy and Cassidy 2008, 2009). RTI was developed as a new approach to identification and intervention for children with learning disabilities (IDEA 2004), and is increasingly adopted for identification of any

M. Bayat (&)
G. Mindes
S. Covitt School of Education, Schmitt Academic Center, DePaul University, 2320 N, Kenmore Ave, SAC 334, Chicago, IL 60614, USA e-mail: [email protected]

disability with an adverse effect on academic learning and performance of children from preschool through grade 12. Many discussions and papers exist on the various aspects of RTI and its applications to language-based disabilities in school age children (e.g.: Lyon 1995; Fuchs et al. 2003; Fuchs and Fuchs 2005; VanDerHeyden et al. 2005; Davis et al. 2007; Meadan and Monda-Amaya 2008; Griffiths et al. 2009). However, the same cannot be said about the application of RTI in preschool. Considering the increasing number of children with special needs in preschool inclusive programs, such as Head Start and statefunded pre-kindergarten programs, it is important to understand the application of RTI in preschool. It is also important to understand its impact on identification of children with disabilities, specifically those children who have challenging behaviors in preschool. This paper discusses issues related to RTI in preschool. One case study will be presented as an example of what RTI might look like in preschool.

What is RTI? RTI is a multi-tiered data-driven model wherein teaching strategies are followed up by ongoing assessment to determine whether the student has improved; if the student has not improved, the intervention continues (Demski 2009). The RTI (problem solving) team is usually comprised of specialized teachers and a school administrator who collaborate and consult with the classroom teacher to enhance the teacher’s competence and skills. The purpose of the team’s problem-solving involvementis to provide nonspecial education intervention for children who are struggling academically, before the child is referred for special education (Tam and Heng 2005; Truscott et al. 2005).

123

494

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500

Fig. 1 Three-tiered model of RTI

Most school districts adopt a 3-tiered model of RTI (see Fig. 1 for a diagram of an RTI model): Tier I The first tier of RTI, called the primary intervention, consists of screening to identify at-risk students, implementing whole group, high quality research-based instruction, and progress monitoring of all students (Bradley et al. 2007). At this tier, the teacher begins using a research—validated curriculum—that might have been recommended by the RTI team. The teacher targets specific skills in large or small group format, and conducts ongoing assessment to make sure of the efficacy of the intervention. Tier II If children who are identified in Tier I continue to have difficulties after the implementation of the evidence based

123

curriculum, parental consent is obtained for these children to receive private tutoring and a more intense intervention in addition to the Tier 1 intervention. In Tier II private tutoring might be done by a specialized teacher or a general education teacher (Truscott et al. 2005). At each tier of intervention students who show slow or no progress are moved to the subsequent tiers of intervention to receive individual instruction in higher frequency. Data are collected carefully and meticulously at every level to monitor progress (Bradley et al. 2007). Tier III At this tier the student receives a more intensive intervention often provided by a specialized teacher and for a longer duration—that is the student receives additional intervention beyond those services which he has been receiving in the previous tiers. If the child shows no progress, the student is referred for a full evaluation (Fuchs and Fuchs 2007).

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500

495

The recommended length for each tier is no more than 8 weeks (Bradley et al. 2007). However, many school districts use between 8 and 15 weeks for each tier of RTI (Fuchs 2003; Demski 2009). Although the final tier of RTI might practically be identical to special education— that is a child receives individual instruction by a learning specialist in high frequency—RTI was originally designed to be implemented in general education settings with special educators being an explicit part of the framework.

For a successful RTI process, conventional testing is not necessarily the best option of assessment in early care and education of young children. Rather, an ongoing playbased/curriculum-based authentic assessment, along with parental observation reports, should be used for monitoring progress and data collection as well as to understand every child’s strengths and needs within his every day learning experiences and environment (Beganto 2006; Coleman et al. 2009). One place where RTI may be especially useful is with challenging behaviors.

RTI in Early Childhood Education

RTI Applied to Children with Challenging Behaviors in the Preschool

Although in the language of the law RTI is not specified for the purpose of identifying disabilities other than learning disability or recommended for children younger than school age, the approach is being increasingly applied to prevention and intervention for younger children and for identification of other types of special needs besides a specific learning disability. The idea of RTI in preschool draws its roots in a belief that ‘‘early delays may become learning disabilities if not addressed at the age when a child should be proficient with particular skills’’ (Coleman et al. 2009, p. 4). RTI is described as a ‘‘potential method for answering preschool service delivery question’’ (Barnett et al. 2006, p. 569). Therefore, in preschool RTI could be used in two ways: (1) to prevent children at risk for academic failure, and (2) to provide prevention and early intervention for those children who are at risk for special needs—for example, children who have challenging behaviors in early age. The latter is especially important, because much of early development of children depends on their social-emotional competence and self-regulation, and early emotional and behavioral difficulties might lead to further learning and developmental problems in later years (Gimpel and Holland 2003). Uniqueness of RTI in the Preschool The features of an RTI model in preschool do not necessarily differ from the general features of RTI for school age children. The main difference, however, is in the problemsolving process. In a preschool setting, the RTI team should consist of early childhood educators, special educators, developmental psychologists, and family members (Beganto 2006). Family members should be involved in the RTI process regardless of the child’s age. However, in preschool, family members (and/or the child’s primary caregivers) make an even more critical contribution to the success of the child, and should be involved as one of the most important members of the problem-solving team from the outset.

The issue of challenging behaviors is an important issue, particularly in preschool, which may be the child’s first experience in group care and education. Some estimates suggest that about 10% of preschoolers exhibit noticeable problem behaviors, with 4–6% of this population exhibiting serious behavior difficulties (Raver and Knitze 2002). There is evidence that when children show behavior problems in preschool, they are more likely to have the same problems later, and/or be diagnosed with disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD; Lavigne et al. 1996; NICHD Early Childhood Research Network 2003). Gilliam (2005) presented a sobering report regarding behavior problems in preschool programs in 40 states. His report indicated that prekindergarten children are expelled at a rate that is three times that of the older children in K-12 grades. Gilliam (2005) reported that the lowest rate of expulsion was associated with when there is behavioral intervention in the classroom. In such situation, teachers who have an access to behavior consultation have the lowest rate of expulsion. Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is proposed to be an appropriate approach for use within the RTI framework for preschool programs (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). PBS is successfully used as a (1) school-wide strategy; (2) classroom-wide behavior management system; and as (3) an intervention to be used for individual children (Lewis and Sugai 1999; Meadan and Monda-Amaya 2008). As a school-wide approach, PBS seeks to provide support to promote both academic success and pro-social behavior for all children (Lewis and Sugai 1999; Blonigen et al. 2008). In a classroom model, PBS is used to focus on fostering social competence for children in small and large groups (Meadan and Monda-Amaya 2008). Finally, a child-level PBS involves designing a behavioral intervention plan to provide support and intervention for the child in the school and at home. Ongoing functional behavior assessment, data taking, and system change is at the heart of an individual PBS plan.

123

496

Applying a RTI approach to children with challenging behaviors in preschool involves forming and maintaining various relationships. First, since responsive caregiving is the foundations of resilience, healthy self-regulation and social-emotional competence (Werner 1995, 2000; Masten et al. 1991), and since positive teacher/child relationship is found to be predictive of academic success (Pianta 1999), establishing and maintaining positive relationships with children in the classroom is an important feature of prevention and intervention for children with behavior problems. Second, building positive relationships with families of young children is crucial in promoting social-emotional competence in children (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). Therefore, forming and maintaining positive relationships with children and their families is at the heart of the first Tier of the RTI in preschool (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). Additionally, positive behavioral strategies such as promoting functional communication in children with language delays, providing praise for appropriate behavior, teaching methods that promote self-regulation and problem solving, and collaboration with families and other professionals are some of the components of a high quality early childhood program in this model at Tier I (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). Tier I RTI for children with challenging behaviors also includes screening for social-emotional/ regulation problems. Screening for social-emotional problems in preschool children should include social competence goals linked to curriculum, use of functional behavior analysis records, ecological interviews, child observation and use of parent and teacher reports (Barnett et al. 2006). In the second tier of RTI with this model, targeted systematic social skills instruction is provided for small group of children in the preschool classroom who are atrisk for behavior problems, but who might not need an individual behavior intervention plan (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). Tier two intervention might involve a social curriculum targeting specific skills such as getting along, sharing, appropriate expression of emotions, etc. Special educators might help early childhood teachers to plan and carryout small group activities (Barnett et al. 2006). In the third tier of RTI for children with challenging behaviors, an intensive and individualized behavior intervention plan is implemented. Tier three involves application of ongoing functional behavior assessment/analysis, data collection, and frequent progress monitoring to apply to decision making (Barnett et al. 2006). A behavioral intervention plan is designed, and brief behavioral intervention trials are made to gauge effectiveness of the plan. Designing an appropriate behavioral intervention plan should occur in collaboration with behavior consultants, special educators, and parents (or other primary caregivers). This collaboration is especially important, because (1) early childhood teachers do not necessarily have the

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500

training background in principles of Applied Behavior Analysis, which is necessary for creating a positive behavioral support plan; and (2) the success of a behavioral intervention plan is only possible when it is implemented consistently both at home and in school.

A Case example of a Successful RTI in preschool This case study involves a state funded preschool in a suburban town in the mid-west. The Midwest School District (Midwest) supports a variety of programs, each with its own unique programming and resources. For example, each preschool program has a different educational philosophy (e.g.: Reggio Emilia, Montessori, HighScope, and other play-based philosophies) and different types of personnel support (e.g.: some have occupational or behavior therapists as consultants or on site). Additionally, the required credentials for preschool teachers vary from one preschool in the district to the next. Therefore, based on training and composition of the early childhood educators and other professionals, preschools in this particular district have varying degrees of expertise and resources for dealing with atypical behaviors that might occur in children. In the previous year, the school district had decided to implement a three-tiered RTI frame-work similar to the one depicted in Fig. 1. Types of curriculum based assessment, research-based curriculum, and intervention were to be determined for each school by the problem solving team. As far as the preschools in the districts were concerned, the following decisions were made. First, since each preschool used a different curriculum, a general developmental screening instrument such as Denver II (Frankenburg et al. 1992) was to be used for the whole class at the beginning of the school year. Second, it was decided that the type of highquality research based instruction for each preschool would be determined in consultation with the problem solving team based on the identified areas of developmental needs in the preschoolers after the screening results had been studied. Finally, because there was a possibility that some children might remain unidentified through the general developmental screening, the RTI process for individual children was also to be initiated when a parent formally requested any of the following: (1) an observation to be made of her/ his child by a specialist from the home school; (2) some type of support services to be directly provided in the preschool to her/his child; or (3) a case study evaluation to be conducted of her/his child. Background Joshua, a 3 1/5 year old boy was enrolled in Prairie Garden Preschool. Prairie Garden Preschool uses a play-based

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500

philosophy. In December, Joshua’s mother, Mrs. Kay, contacted the school district and expressed some concerns regarding Joshua’s behavior. Apparently, Joshua had been having some frequent ‘‘melt-downs’’ at home, and had been displaying some aggressive behaviors that had been escalating during the past months. Ms. Kay contacted the school district and requested that Joshua be observed by an appropriate school professional in his classroom setting, to see whether he displayed similar behaviors at his preschool classroom. Data Collection for Screening Earlier the school district established the following procedures for behavioral screening: (1) examining the results of Denver II developmental screening conducted at the beginning of the school year; (2) interviews with the parent(s), the teacher working directly with the child, and with the school’s administrator; (3) conducting at least 3 observations of the child in the school environment; (4) conducting a Functional Behavioral Analysis, if warranted. Parental consent is needed for initiation of child observation and additional data collection. Mrs. Omani, the Student Service Coordinator of the district began the process by examining Joshua’s screening results. Based on the results of Denver II, Joshua’s development was deemed appropriate for his age level. Thereafter, Mrs. Omani asked Mrs. Kay to meet with her so that they could discuss her concerns further. During this meeting, Mrs. Omani learned more about Joshua’s family life and his daily routine. In this same meeting Mrs. Omani explained the RTI process to Mrs. Kay. She explained that the length and complexity of the process depends on the child’s needs. For example, a child’s behavioral needs might only require a single observation, feedback to the parents, and some suggestions to the preschool staff for behavior management. And that on the other hand, it might involve various personnel’s expertise, like consultation from behavioral specialist, or a psychologist. She asked Mrs. Kay for verbal and written permission so that she could begin interviewing the preschool staff and observe Joshua in his classroom. Joshua in Tier I of RTI After obtaining parental consent, Mrs. Omani made a trip to the Prairie Garden Preschool and met with the preschool director, Mrs. Palmer, and with the classroom lead teacher. Mrs. Palmer described Joshua as a ‘‘quirky’’ child who ‘‘growled’’ at classmates in order to scare them. She stated that Joshua was often being perceived to be a ‘‘wild child and a bully’’ by others, and that his behavior had been perceived as being more severe than it actually was. She

497

believed that Joshua’s behaviors were within the typical range for his age (as had been indicated by the developmental screening results that was conducted in fall), and there was no cause for concern. Joshua’s teacher, Ms. Audrey was of a different opinion. She complained that Joshua often displayed behaviors such as ‘‘yelling and throwing.’’ She stated that Joshua often tried to bend the rules of any given game and became insistent about the roles classmates were to assume during free play activities. At times, Joshua displayed some bullying behaviors, saying ‘‘Do [this] or I will hurt you.’’ Ms. Audrey believed that the reason for Joshua’s inappropriate behaviors was for ‘‘the mere sake of being defiant to common rules and procedures.’’ Ms. Audrey described Joshua’s play schemes as ‘‘well formulated with a logical order.’’ However, she stated that Joshua often had some difficulties sharing toys and materials with other children. She indicated that when in a social situation that required any negotiation or problem solving with peers, Joshua seemed to have a low tolerance and high frustration level for conflict or differences of opinions about the direction of the play. Within the next 2 weeks, Mrs. Omani made two observations of Joshua in his classroom. Two teachers were present in the classroom throughout the ‘ day program. Ms. Omani’s analysis of her notes confirmed many of the behavioral characteristics that had been previously described by Joshua’s parents and the preschool personnel. However, she also noted several factors related to the setting events—factors related to the immediate and removed environments relating to Joshua that might contribute to his behaviors. •

•

When Joshua had appropriate behaviors, like playing with other children cooperatively, he did not receive any positive attention (like verbal encouragements and praise) from his teachers. Joshua was often singled out for any small infractions like speaking loudly (noted in 24 total incidents during 2 observations), and was verbally reprimanded immediately. This was not the case for other children in the classroom who spoke loudly occasionally. Joshua’s challenging behaviors—such as opposition, and verbal threats to peers—occurred in the following situations: during small group activities requiring cooperation and sharing and in several transition times—whether in-between activities, or at the beginning and end of the day.

In the following week, members of the problem-solving team were designated: Mrs. Omani, a behavior consultant from the district, a developmental psychologist, Mrs. Audrey, her assistant, and Mrs. Kay. First, the behavior consultant made additional observations of Joshua and

123

498

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500

conducted a functional behavior analysis. Based on her analysis a preliminary classroom-wide positive behavior support plan was written. Second, Mrs. Omni and the behavior consultant met with both teachers to discuss this plan of intervention at Tier I. The team met with Mrs. Kay to discuss and further refine the intervention plan. The team came up with the following final plan:

specialist demonstrated to the team ways to provide positive attention to Joshua when he displayed a positive behavior, and to ignore him when he displayed negative behaviors that were harmless. All members of the problemsolving team, including Joshua’s mother decided to collect data during intervention regarding any change in Joshua’s behavior.

1.

Data Collection for Progress Monitoring

2.

Three social stories were written with the following topics, It is Hard to Share, I Get Angry Sometimes, and How we Play Together. Ms. Audrey or her assistant were to read the stories for the whole group every day before free-play time, and making sure that Joshua and others had time to understand and process the stories. Positive attention and praise were to be given for all children during small and large group activities for the following behaviors: a.

Using positive and kind words, following directions, listening to___, taking turns, sharing. b. A schedule of positive reinforcement consisting of an appropriate form of praise, high fives, and a star chart leading to a favorite activity was designed for the whole class. Appropriate form of praise was defined as a praise that describes a behavior in a positive way precisely so as to provide guidance for the child for appropriate behavior, such as ‘‘I like the way you are sitting so quietly and reading your book;’’ or ‘‘I like the way you are sharing the toy truck with your friend.’’ This schedule of positive reinforcement for specific behaviors was to be used for all children, but more specifically for Joshua, during small and large group activities. c. Teachers were to use a transition song ‘‘It is time, it’s time, it’s time to _____’’ beginning 10 min before transition and repeating it three times at 3 min intervals until the actual transition occurred. d. Classroom rules for appropriate sitting, play and cooperation, loud and small voices, and following directions were to be written and supported with pictures using BoardmakerTM symbols. Teachers were to verbally reiterate and review all rules with children daily at the beginning of the day and before every large group activity. Finally, the problem solving team discussed a behavior support program to be used by Joshua’s parents at home. The psychologist answered Mrs. Kay’s questions regarding Joshua’s social emotional development, and together with the other team members Mrs. Kay identified several behaviors for reinforcement at home. The team helped Joshua’s mother design a positive reinforcement schedule at home, and members discussed factors that are important during implementation. For example, the behavior

123

Within the next 10 weeks, the problem solving team keptup an ongoing open communication among all members to ensure consistency of intervention. Both teachers and Mrs. Kay collected daily data on Joshua’s behavior to assess efficacy of the intervention plan. Teachers designed a one page behavioral checklist to measure occurrences of the following behaviors during the day: refusal to share toys and materials, expressing anger by aggression, refusal to follow directions, refusal to take turns, showing bullying behaviors toward peers, and displaying aggressive language and behaviors toward others. In addition, teachers took anecdotal notes at every transition time, and during free play periods. Joshua’s mother was instructed to take anecdotal notes every time that Joshua had a ‘‘melt-down’’ at home. According to the data, Joshua responded positively to the intervention. In addition, the changes made in the delivery of the instruction, the curriculum, and the teachers’ behaviors proved to be effective for the entire classroom as well as promoting positive classroom management strategies in the teachers. After 10 weeks, by the beginning of spring, teachers and the parents reported Joshua’s behavior as significantly improved. Joshua was prepared to successfully participate in the transition activities designed for the incoming kindergarteners sponsored by the local elementary school. Joshua is currently enrolled in the Kindergarten. Although he requires occasional support and guidance from adults in the environment, he shows all signs of socialemotional adjustment, and currently participates in all school activities along with his peers with much success. Had Joshua not responded positively at the first tier of intervention, subsequent hypothetical interventions in tiers II and III might be as follow: Joshua in Tier II In addition to the classroom-wide positive behavior support plan already in use, an individual behavioral intervention plan would be written for Joshua with details regarding shaping and changing one or two targeted behaviors. A consistent schedule for use of positive reinforcements would be articulated within the plan. A behavior specialist

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500

would conduct 30 min one-on-one trial sessions with Joshua two to three times per week in which the behavior plan is implemented. For consistency, a similar plan of intervention for targeted behaviors would be followed up at home by the parents and in the classroom during the group activities by the teachers. Data collection for progress monitoring would continue the same way as in Tier I both in the classroom and at home. However, in addition to these measures, anecdotal notes would also be taken during the individual sessions. The behavior specialist, teachers, and parents would communicate via phone, email or in person as needed to ensure the consistency of plan. Joshua in Tier III Additional functional behavioral analysis might be conducted and Joshua’s behavior intervention plan might be modified. Joshua would receive one-on-one support in trial sessions from the behavior specialist on a daily basis varying in duration from 30 to 45 min in which his behavior intervention plan would be followed consistently. The classroom teachers and parents continue to follow similar progress monitoring and intervention plans in both environments. Data collection and communication follows the same pattern as in tier II. If Joshua fails to respond to intervention at tier III after 8–10 weeks, he would be referred for a full evaluation and diagnostic testing through the school district. Discussion and Recommendations As shown here, use of RTI in preschool can be specifically beneficial to address social-emotional issues in children, and to provide appropriate positive behavior support for the child. Three issues should be kept in mind regarding this case study: (1) the preschool under study had some unique resources at its disposal, such as a behavior specialist and a psychologist; (2) staff had established some successful ways of communicating with parents and getting the family members involved in the RTI process; and a parent made the initial request for assistance, assuring parent involvement in the intervention. We speculate that establishing partnership with families should not be an overly difficult task for many early childhood programs, because not only are early childhood programs generally parent friendly, but state and federal programs have been making ongoing efforts in providing pre-service and in-service training for early childhood professionals to promote competency in the area of working with families. On the other hand, having resources like expert consultation are not commodities that are readily available in many state and federally

499

funded early childhood programs. However, looking at the above case study, it could easily be observed that the intervention that was provided for Joshua at school and in his home consisted of a simple plan of strategies that promoted a classroom-wide positive behavior support. Design and implementation of a such a plan do not necessarily require an expert’s input. We therefore make the following recommendations regarding the use of RTI in preschool: At its most basic level, RTI in preschool should be used to address challenging behavior of children and to promote social-emotional competency early on. This would provide a necessary developmental support for these young children, and increase the likelihood for them to be academically successful as they enter Kindergarten and higher grades. RTI should be a natural part of the daily curriculum. For example: •

•

•

The preschool program should have a program-wide positive behavior support plan that all personnel use consistently. Preschool teachers should have a classroom-wide positive behavior support plan that they consistently implement for all children throughout the day. Developmental screening should occur at least two or three times during the preschool year to detect any developmental issues in children.

Training in principles of Applied Behavior Analysis, Positive Behavior Support, Functional Behavior Assessment, and behavior intervention planning and implementation should be a part of pre-service as well as inservice programs for Early Childhood Education professionals. This is especially important, as RTI becomes widely adopted by early childhood programs. Administrators, teachers, and other professionals in school should follow a basic common protocol for communication and collaboration with the family members. For example: •

•

• •

The school RTI process is explained at the beginning of the school year during the open-houses, and through school newsletters that are sent home. Parents are encouraged as part of this orientation to bring home and school behavioral concerns to the table for coordinated problem-solving. A parent involvement plan exists and is followed by all preschool personnel consistently. There are specific protocols and code of ethics for talking and communicating with parents.

Finally, RTI should not be used to delay diagnosis and provision of services for children with special needs.

123

500

We conclude with an emphasis on this final recommendation that RTI should only be used as a prevention measure, and not as a delaying tactic for provision of necessary services for children who might have special needs. One way to ensure the success of RTI in early childhood programs is to demonstrate its correct use by utilizing it as a vehicle for alleviation of risk factors and promotion of future developmental health and academic success, and for speedy diagnosis and provision of services for children with special needs.

References Barnett, D. W., Elliott, N., Wolsing, L., Bunger, C. E., Haski, H., McKissick, C., et al. (2006). Response to intervention for young children with extremely challenging behaviors: What it might look like? School Psychology Review, 35(4), 568–582. Beganto, S. J. (2006). Of helping and measuring for early childhood intervention: Reflections on issues and school psychology role. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 615–620. Blonigen, B. A., Harbaugh, W. T., Singell, L. D., Horner, R. H., Irvin, L. K., & Smolkowski, K. S. (2008). Application of economic analysis to school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) programs. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(1), 5–19. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8–12. Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2008). What’s hot for 2008: In the 12th annual survey, phonics is not hot for the first time. Reading Today, 25(4), 1. 4, 11. Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2009). What’s hot for 2009: National reading panel influence wanes in 13th annual survey. Reading Today, 26(4), 1. 10–11. Coleman, M. R., Roth, F. P., & West, T. (2009). Roadmap to Pre-K RTI: Applying response to intervention in preschool settings. National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc. Retrieved July 7, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/images/stories/learn/roadmaptoprekrti. pdf. Davis, G. N., Lindo, E. J., & Compton, D. L. (2007). Children at risk for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 32–37. Demski, J. (2009). Asses, instruct, repeat. The Journal. Retrieved July 7, 2009 from http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/05/01/assessinstruct-repeat.aspx?sc_lang=en&sc_mode=edit. Fox, L., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). A program-wide model for supporting social emotional development and addressing challenging behavior in early childhood settings. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 177–202). New York: Springer. Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Bresnick, B., Maschka, P., Edelman, N., et al. (1992). Denver II: Denver developmental screening test. Denver, CO: Denver Developmental Materials Inc. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172–186. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57–61.

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493–500 Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18(3), 157–171. Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten programs. Foundation for Child Development: FCD policy brief series No. 3. New York: Author. Retrieved July 10, 2009 from http://www.challengingbehavior. org/explore/policy_docs/prek_expulsion.pdf. Gimpel, G. A., & Holland, M. L. (2003). Emotional behavioral problems of young children: Effective interventions in the preschool and kindergarten years. New York: Guilford Press. Griffiths, A. J., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Skodut, M., & Lilles, E. (2009). Progress monitoring in oral reading fluency within the context of RTI. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(1), 13–23. Lavigne, J. V., Gibbons, R. D., Christoffel, K. K., Arend, R., Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H., et al. (1996). Prevalence rates and correlates of psychiatric disorders among preschool children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 204–214. Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1–24. Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the national institute of child health and human development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10(Suppl. 1), S120–S126. Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcame adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444. Meadan, H., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2008). Collaboration to promote social competence for students with mild disabilities in general classroom: A structure for providing school social support. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 158–167. National Institute of Child Health, Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Social functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with current classroom experiences. Child Development, 74, 1639–1662. Pianta, R. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers: School psychology book series. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Raver, C. C., & Knitze, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-old children (NCCP Policy paper No. 3). New York: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Tam, K. Y., & Heng, M. A. (2005). A case involving culturally and linguistically diverse parents in prereferral intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 222–230. Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. Retrieved July 10, 2009 from http://www. challengingbehavior.org/do/resources/documents/sek_cap_book let.pdf. Truscott, S. D., Cohen, C. E., Sams, D. P., Sansborn, K. J., & Frank, A. J. (2005). The current state(s) of prereferral intervention teams: A report from two national surveys. Remedial And Special Education, 26(3), 130–140. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Special Issue: Response to Intervention, 23, 339–361. Werner, E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(3), 81–85.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.