On the Importance of a Unified Model of Responsiveness-To-Intervention

In this commentary, we take issue with only one idea in Fletcher and Vaughn's overall balanced description of the potential advantages and disadvantages of RTI: the assertion that RTI models are best conceptualized as a set of processes, not as a single model of service delivery. We argue that RTI's major goal, to prevent long-term and debilitating academic failure, is better served by a unified model that encourages shared understanding among all school-based practitioners about intervention intensity, roles and responsibilities, and constructive and effective relationships between general and special education. We briefly describe a unified model, explain how it eases some of the challenges associated with RTI implementation, and consider implications for learning disabilities.