The Promise Of Response To Intervention Evaluating Current Science And Practice 1st Edition Todd A Glover Phd

The Promise Of Response To Intervention
Evaluating Current Science And Practice 1st
Edition Todd A Glover Phd download
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-response-to-
intervention-evaluating-current-science-and-practice-1st-edition-
todd-a-glover-phd-4445510
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Problems And Promise Of Commercial Society Adam Smiths Response To
Rousseau Dennis C Rasmussen
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-problems-and-promise-of-commercial-
society-adam-smiths-response-to-rousseau-dennis-c-rasmussen-51830760
The Problems And Promise Of Commercial Society Adam Smiths Response To
Rousseau Dennis Carl Rasmussen
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-problems-and-promise-of-commercial-
society-adam-smiths-response-to-rousseau-dennis-carl-rasmussen-2183798
The Promise Of Memory Childhood Recollection And Its Objects In
Literary Modernism Lorna Martens
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-memory-childhood-
recollection-and-its-objects-in-literary-modernism-lorna-
martens-46495220
The Promise Of Public Service Ideas And Examples For Effective Service
Michael M Stahl
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-public-service-ideas-and-
examples-for-effective-service-michael-m-stahl-47290052

The Promise Of The East Nazi Hopes And Genocide Christian Ingrao
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-the-east-nazi-hopes-and-
genocide-christian-ingrao-47619386
The Promise Of Multispecies Justice Sophie Chao Karin Bolender
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-multispecies-justice-
sophie-chao-karin-bolender-48672142
The Promise Of The Suburbs A Victorian History In Literature And
Culture Sarah Bilston
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-the-suburbs-a-victorian-
history-in-literature-and-culture-sarah-bilston-50168088
The Promise Of Martin Luthers Political Theology Michael Laffin
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-martin-luthers-political-
theology-michael-laffin-50228718
The Promise Of Reason Studies In The New Rhetoric 1st Edition John T
Gage Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-promise-of-reason-studies-in-the-
new-rhetoric-1st-edition-john-t-gage-editor-51274740

The Promise of Response to Intervention

The Promise of
Response to Intervention
Evaluating Current Science and Practice
Edited by
Todd A. Glover
Sharon Vaughn
The Guilford Press
New York London

© 2010 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012
www.guilford.com
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording,
or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The promise of response to intervention : evaluating current science and practice /
edited by Todd A. Glover, Sharon Vaughn.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-60623-562-1 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Remedial teaching. 2. School failure—Prevention. I. Glover, Todd A.
II. Vaughn, Sharon, 1952–
LB1029.R4P76 2010
372.43—dc22
2009052909

v
About the Editors
Todd A. Glover, PhD, is Research Assistant Professor at the Nebraska Center
for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools at the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln. His research focuses on response to intervention (RTI),
academic and behavioral interventions and assessments for students at risk,
and methods for integrating empirical evidence and practice. Dr. Glover is
the principal or co-principal investigator of several ongoing grant projects
funded by the United States Department of Education’s Institute of Educa-
tion Sciences and the Nebraska Department of Education, including a state
RTI consortium, postdoctoral training program, and various research stud-
ies investigating service delivery and professional development for RTI.
Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corporation Regents
Chair in Human Development and Executive Director of the Meadows
Center for Preventing Educational Risk at the University of Texas at Aus-
tin. She is the principal investigator or co-principal investigator of numer-
ous research grants funded by the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the Texas
Education Agency.

vii
Contributors
Lynanne Black, PhD, Department of Educational and School Psychology,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania
Karen Blase, PhD, FPG, Child Development Institute, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Christina H. Boice, MA, School Psychology Program, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Matthew K. Burns, PhD, School Psychology Program, University
Theodore J. Christ, PhD, School Psychology Program, University
Ben Clarke, PhD, Instructional Research Group, Los Alamitos, California,
and Pacific Institutes for Research, Eugene, Oregon
Susan De La Paz, PhD, Department of Special Education, University of
Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
Carolyn A. Denton, PhD, Children’s Learning Institute, University
of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
Christine Espin, PhD, Department of Education and Child Studies,
University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands, and Department
of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Dean Fixsen, PhD, FPG, Child Development Institute, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Russell Gersten, PhD, Instructional Research Group, Los Alamitos,
California

viii Contributors
Todd A. Glover, PhD, Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth,
Families and Schools, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska
John M. Hintze, PhD, Department of Student Development and Pupil
Personnel Services, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst,
Massachusetts
Robert H. Horner, PhD, Special Education Department, University of
Oregon, Eugene, Eugene, Oregon
Tanya Ihlo, PhD, Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth,
Families and Schools, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln,
Nebraska
Joseph F. Kovaleski, DEd, Program in School Psychology, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania
Amanda M. Marcotte, PhD, Department of Student Development
and Pupil Personnel Services, University of Massachusetts Amherst,
Amherst, Massachusetts
Kristen L. McMaster, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Melissa Nantais, PhD, School Psychology Department, University
of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan
Rebecca Newman-Gonchar, PhD, Instructional Research Group,
Los Alamitos, California
Deborah Reed, PhD, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
George Sugai, PhD, Educational Psychology Department, Neag School
of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
Isadora Szadokierski, MA, School Psychology Program, University
Sharon Vaughn, PhD, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Jeanne Wanzek, PhD, School of Teacher Education, Florida Center for
Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

ix
Preface
Teachers confront considerable challenges in supporting stu-
dents in their classrooms. Given unique learning and behavioral concerns,
competing time demands, and a wide range of political and cultural influ-
ences, the provision of equitable educational opportunities for all children
and adolescents requires skillful attention to the appropriate use of new
strategies and resources. Although traditional models for the delivery of
instruction support select students, educators have continued to press for
novel approaches to meet a wider range of individuals’ needs.
Given its potential to impact school outcomes for numerous students,
educators have recently focused significant attention on a response-to-
intervention (RTI) model for guiding their work in schools. Within an RTI
framework, school personnel set strong standards for achievement and
work together to use student data to inform the implementation of research-
based instruction and intervention to maximize opportunities for students’
success. Assessment tools are used to make decisions about the effectiveness
of instruction and students’ need for and response to scientifically based
intervention, and practices are implemented for all students based on clearly
identified instructional goals.
Because the impact of RTI is contingent upon the quality of its imple-
mentation, critical consideration of which specific RTI processes and prac-
tices optimize student success is needed. By continuing to investigate aspects
of an RTI model, researchers are better able to identify which components
are necessary and vital for promoting student success. By integrating prac-
tices identified as optimally effective within classrooms, school stakeholders
increase opportunities for positive outcomes.

x Preface
The purpose of this book is to provide a synopsis of the current state of
research pertaining to the implementation of RTI. For school practitioners
and administrators, it highlights the implications from extant research on
key service delivery components. For researchers, it provides a framework
for considering and advancing future investigations.
Each chapter of this book provides a critical account of research per-
taining to aspects of service delivery for RTI. The book begins with an intro-
duction to the potential of RTI as a framework for supporting all students.
Several key service delivery components of RTI are introduced in Chapter
2, along with considerations for using research to guide implementation.
A discussion of the practical implications from research on each of the key
RTI service delivery components is described throughout the remainder of
the book. Chapter 3 provides a synopsis of research and implementation
efforts from multiple states pertaining to a multi-tier prevention/interven-
tion framework for service delivery. Chapter 4 summarizes key consider-
ations for student assessment and data-based decision making. A synopsis
of critical considerations from research on instruction and interventions in
the areas of reading, mathematics, writing, and behavioral supports is then
provided in Chapters 5 through 10. Chapter 11 includes considerations
about the interface between service delivery for RTI and special education.
The book then concludes with a discussion of the development of systems-
level capacity to implement RTI.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge those in the academic, practicing, and political commu-
nities who have contributed to the advancement of science pertaining to
RTI. Sincere gratitude is extended to Jim DiPerna at The Pennsylvania State
University and to the Co-Directors of the Nebraska RTI Consortium and
Tanya Ihlo for insights pertaining to the components of successful RTI ser-
vice delivery implementation. Thanks also to Holly Sexton for editorial
assistance with the final manuscript. We particularly appreciate those in
our families who have provided ongoing inspiration and support, especially
Michaela Glover, Anne Glover, Alec Glover, and James Dammann.

xi
Contents
1 Supporting All Students: The Promise of Response 1
to Intervention
Todd A. Glover
2 Key RTI Service Delivery Components: 7
Considerations for Research-Informed Practice
Todd A. Glover
3 Multi-Tier Service Delivery: Current Status 23
and Future Directions
Joseph F. Kovaleski and Lynanne Black
4 Student Assessment and Data-Based Decision Making 57
John M. Hintze and Amanda M. Marcotte
5 Preventing and Remediating Reading Difficulties: 78
Perspectives from Research
Carolyn A. Denton and Sharon Vaughn
6 Research-Based Implications from Extensive Early 113
Reading Interventions
Jeanne Wanzek and Sharon Vaughn

xii Contents
7 Reading Interventions for Older Students 143
Deborah Reed and Sharon Vaughn
8 RTI in Mathematics: Beginnings of a Knowledge Base 187
Ben Clarke, Russell Gersten, and Rebecca Newman-Gonchar
9 RTI in Writing Instruction: Implementing Evidence-Based 204
Interventions and Evaluating the Effects
for Individual Students
Susan De La Paz, Christine Espin, and Kristen L. McMaster
10 Evidence-Based Interventions within a Multi-Tier 239
Framework for Positive Behavioral Supports
Tanya Ihlo and Melissa Nantais
11 Special Education in an RTI Model: Addressing Unique 267
Learning Needs
Matthew K. Burns, Theodore J. Christ, Christina H. Boice,
and Isadora Szadokierski
12 Developing Systems-Level Capacity 286
for RTI Implementation: Current Efforts
and Future Directions
George Sugai, Robert H. Horner, Dean Fixsen, and Karen Blase
Index 311

1
1
Supporting All Students
The Promise of Response
to Intervention
Todd A. Glover
The educational community has reason to be optimistic. Per-
haps for the first time, educators are beginning to attend to large-scale, sys-
tematic reform driven by principles that link the multidisciplinary commu-
nities addressing schooling. School personnel have already begun to reach
across divisions once fragmenting student supports in our schools. With a
renewed focus on the integration of services that promote the success of stu-
dents along a continuum of need, school administrators, classroom teachers,
school psychologists, content area specialists, special educators, and others
have begun to work together toward a collective vision.
Among many educational innovations developed to help meet the needs
of all students (some have already come and gone), perhaps no practice has
garnered as much recent attention as response to intervention (RTI) for its
ability to accommodate students with such varying service demands (e.g.,
high-performing students, students academically or behaviorally behind
their classmates in various content domains, those diagnosed with specific
learning disabilities). By making use of systematic student data collection,
carefully defined instructional decision-making criteria, and the application
of scientifically based core programs and intervention, school personnel
operate within an RTI framework via a continuum of services. Through the
collective participation of administrators, data collectors, classroom teach-

2 THE PROMISE OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
ers, school psychologists, content specialists, special educators, and others,
RTI provides a cohesive schoolwide mechanism for ongoing support for all
students.
The Potential of RTI:
Professional Empowerment
to Support All Students
The success of RTI is predicated upon the notion that (a) educational systems
have the potential, based on rigorous expectations and standards, to support
all students and (b) research- and data-based assessment and instructional
tools, when applied appropriately, lead to professional empowerment.
Within an RTI framework, strong performance standards are estab-
lished and instruction and intervention are implemented based on regularly
identified needs to help ensure that all students attain their potential. Low-
performing and at-risk students are systematically identified and provided
appropriate services to bolster achievement, while typical and high-perform-
ing students are provided with ongoing opportunities for continued growth
and development. By establishing clearly defined expectations and system-
atically utilizing student progress data and empirical evidence to guide edu-
cational decisions, educators create equal opportunities for all students to
learn within the classroom.
School personnel involved in the implementation of service delivery
for RTI (e.g., teachers, administrators, special educators, school psycholo-
gists) are empowered as professionals by the use of research- and data-based
assessment and instructional tools that provide the potential to (a) accu-
rately identify students’ progress in meeting performance expectations, (b)
implement core instruction and intervention supports with demonstrated
effectiveness for the students they serve, and (c) continually monitor and
refine the education process to ensure that the provision of services pro-
motes the attainment of clearly defined goals and objectives for learning
growth and development.
By using information from rigorous research on instructional
approaches/practices and data collected within their schools, educational
stakeholders have the freedom to make strategic decisions that maximize
the opportunities to support their students. School personnel are systematic
within an RTI framework in (a) regularly identifying instructional needs
through the collection of information on students and school practices and
(b) selecting appropriate practices for which research has demonstrated the
greatest potential in supporting these needs. Through a process of continu-
ous improvement, they are able to make refinements in services that pro-
mote student success.

Supporting All Students 3
When implemented appropriately, RTI can provide the basis for an
integrated system of student support facilitated by multiple school stake-
holders with complementary expertise in a variety of content domains.
School personnel participate in clearly defined activities designed to identify
student needs and provide supports where needed. Administrators, teachers,
specialists, and support personnel regularly assess the effectiveness of their
core instructional and behavioral support programs. Periodic screening is
administered by school staff and used to collect academic and/or behav-
ior indicators for all students and to guide school personnel in identifying
the need for additional instructional alterations and/or intervention. Core
programs are modified by administrators, teachers, and specialists based
on their effectiveness (as demonstrated locally and via empirical research).
Additional progress monitoring assessments are administered by support
staff, and interventions with scientific evidence of their effectiveness are pro-
vided (often via multiple tiers of service) and modified for students whose
needs continue to be unmet by the general curriculum. To ensure equity
in the treatment of all students, clearly defined data-based rules are used
to make decisions about individuals’ eligibility for specific instructional
programs and interventions. Throughout a process of systematic reflection
and intervention, school stakeholders thus have the potential to address the
needs of students within their schools (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005).
RTI as a Framework for School Reform:
The Importance of “Doing It Right”
With such great promise, teachers and administrators have already begun
to implement components of RTI within their schools. School personnel
have begun to participate in professional development related to student
assessment, data-based decision making, and the application of scientifically
based interventions. Administrators, teachers, support personnel, and oth-
ers are beginning to modify and adopt new approaches to assessment and
interventions within their schools.
Unfortunately, although the potential of RTI is great, schools confront
considerable challenges. As indicated by the 2007 National Assessment of
Educational Progress report, less than one-third of students are proficient in
math and reading in both fourth and eighth grades (outcomes are slightly
better for fourth-grade math students, with 39% of the students scoring
“proficient”). Further, the achievement gap between racial/ethnic minority
students and their Caucasian classmates is significant, and students diag-
nosed with a specific learning disability continue to lag behind. Without a
doubt, considerable change is needed to address the unmet needs of so many
students.

For RTI to achieve its greatest potential, the educational commu-
nity must not only attend to simply whether RTI is in place; but, more
importantly, they must also carefully consider how it is implemented. This
involves critically examining aspects of RTI and whether they are effective
to ensure that we are “doing it right.” It requires continually conducting
and evaluating the rigor of research on key components of RTI models,
investigating the adaptation of research-based practices in specific settings,
and regularly adhering to process guidelines that are based on strong stan-
dards and empirical support.
Critical Consideration of Research
A critical first step to ensuring that we are “doing it right” involves care-
fully considering ongoing research on RTI. Research on specific RTI com-
ponents (e.g., program and interventions, multi-tier service delivery, student
assessment, and decision making) is important in providing information
about which educational processes and practices are most effective. To
help ensure that significant school resources are allocated appropriately in
ways that support positive student outcomes, critical attention to the use
of methods that maximize the validity and replicability of research find-
ings (e.g., controlled experimental trials, psychometrically appropriate vali-
dation studies) is required. By attending to the distinction between valid
and reliable research findings and potentially inaccurate information from
poorly designed studies, we can improve our ability to make informed deci-
sions about how to address students’ needs (Albers & Glover, 2007; Glover
& DiPerna, 2007). By setting a strong standard for identifying credible
research and by using credible research findings to guide educational imple-
mentation, we can better promote the use of effective practices within our
schools.
Investigation/Adaptation of Practices
for Setting Appropriate Learning Needs
“Doing it right” also requires that, as practices supported by rigorous
research are adapted within classrooms, educators regularly investigate
outcomes to determine whether they are appropriately addressing specific
learning needs (e.g., students with specific skill acquisition difficulties, those
for whom English is a second language, those with developmental concerns,
typically performing students). Additional regular evaluation in schools can
help to determine whether processes and practices are effectively serving
their intended function. These efforts are vital for establishing when school
implementation requires refinement or modification to best support stu-
dents.

Supporting All Students 5
Attention to Process Guidelines
Finally, because the impact of any process or practice is affected greatly
by the quality of its implementation, “doing it right” requires attending
to whether school practices adhere to research-supported guidelines for
implementation. By regularly monitoring the fidelity of implementation of
assessment processes, instructional decision making, and intervention provi-
sion, educators can determine whether they are maximizing opportunities
for student success. Information collected on implementation can then be
used formatively to impact future training opportunities for school person-
nel (Gansle & Noell, 2007).
Strategically Maximizing
Support for All Students
Educators confront significant challenges in meeting the needs of all students.
Given its attention to regularly monitoring student outcomes and providing
research-based core program and intervention supports, RTI holds consid-
erable promise as a mechanism of service delivery and school reform. Criti-
cal to the success of RTI is the careful use of research to inform practice, the
continual evaluation of RTI components in schools, and regular adherence
to implementation guidelines. By strategically critiquing research and appli-
cation on an ongoing basis, rather than simply “adopting and implanting”
RTI, educators can systematically maximize opportunities for all students
to succeed.
The chapters in this book provide an initial starting point for empow-
ering educational professionals to become critical consumers in evaluating
RTI research with practical implications. Within each chapter, a research
synopsis is provided along with future research needs to guide educators in
determining optimal RTI processes, procedures, and practices. It is hoped
that the content in these chapters will promote continued reflection and
consideration among educators about the appropriate implementation of
services that support all students in schools.
References
Albers, C. A., & Glover, T. A. (2007). How can universal screening enhance edu-
cational and mental health outcomes? Journal of School Psychology, 45, 113–
116.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles
and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention imple-

mentation in assessing resistance to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K.
Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention:
The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 244–251). New
York: Springer Science.
Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery models for response to inter-
vention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 36, 526–640.

7
2
Key RTI Service Delivery
Components
Considerations for
Research-Informed Practice
Todd A. Glover
Successful educational innovations are not only the product of
cutting-edge ideas. They also involve the translation of theories and con-
cepts into clearly operationalized, empirically supported applications. The
focus of this book is based on the premise that successful implementation
of response to intervention (RTI) requires examination of specific compo-
nents of service delivery though research and the continual refinement and
adjustment of practices in school settings to maximize student success. Sev-
eral key components required to implement RTI are introduced in this chap-
ter. Throughout the remainder of the book, a critical account of the research
with implications for practice is provided for each of these aspects of service
delivery. The components and their importance are described first, followed
by criteria for evaluating their empirical support. The chapter concludes with
a discussion of the importance of collecting and responding to fidelity-moni-
toring data in the implementation of all processes and practices for RTI.
Key Service Delivery Components for RTI
By using data on students’ performance to identify instructional and inter-
vention needs and then systematically implementing educational supports

with fidelity at varying levels of intensity, service delivery within an RTI
framework has the potential to maximize learning for all students. RTI
implementation involves attending to multiple aspects of service delivery:
(a) coordinating the involvement of multiple educational stakeholders, (b)
providing support to all students via a multi-tier system, (c) using student
data to inform instructional decisions systematically, and (d) delivering
instruction and interventions that have been found through research to pro-
mote student performance.
Stakeholder Involvement
Because service delivery for RTI takes place schoolwide, multiple stake-
holders are required to coordinate implementation efforts. Typically, school
teams composed of general and special education teachers, administrators,
and various specialists and support personnel (e.g., reading specialists,
school psychologists, speech–language pathologists) work together through-
out implementation of services for RTI. Through regular meetings and col-
laborative activities, these teams regularly conduct and participate in ongo-
ing professional development, establish and maintain protocols for student
assessment and intervention, systematically review student data, and exam-
ine and monitor the appropriateness of core instruction and interventions.
Parents are also typically informed about the service delivery framework
for RTI and are notified about and involved in team meetings pertaining to
decisions affecting their children.
Multi-Tier Implementation
To accommodate students with varying levels of need, services for RTI are
provided within a multi-tier framework. Often this framework is com-
posed of three tiers derived from the field of public health (e.g., see Sugai &
Horner, 2006; Walker & Shinn, 2002). An illustration of a three-tier model
is provided in Figure 2.1. As depicted, core scientifically based programs
and assessments are provided to all students at the primary level of the
system (Tier 1). This level is designed to support the majority (typically at
least 80%) of students (Walker & Shinn, 2002). All students are screened.
In addition to receiving core instruction and behavioral supports, students
who do not meet performance expectations based on systematic screening
are provided with additional, secondary-level (Tier 2) intervention, often
within a smaller group setting. These students are then assessed at regular
intervals to determine whether they are responding to additional research-
based supports. Students who do not respond to secondary intervention
are then provided with more intensive, individualized tertiary-level (Tier 3)
support. As depicted in Figure 2.1, regular progress monitoring data and

Key RTI Service Delivery Components 9
systematic decision rules are used to determine intervention differentiation
within tiers and the appropriateness of movement between tiers for students
who do not meet screening benchmark expectations.
Student Assessment and Data-Based Decision Making
To help ensure that students are provided with opportunities to succeed,
data on all students are collected within an RTI service delivery framework
and compared with clearly defined benchmark expectations for perfor-
mance. Screening takes place at regular intervals throughout the school year
(typically once in the fall, winter, and spring) by measuring performance
on skill-based and behavioral indicators found through research to predict
future academic success. The data are analyzed to determine (a) whether
the majority of students meet benchmark expectations in response to core
instruction and (b) which students may require additional intervention.
Diagnostic assessments and interventions are provided to students who do
not meet benchmark levels of performance, and comparable forms of skill-
based and behavioral progress monitoring assessments are collected at regu-
lar intervals (e.g., weekly) to determine whether these students are respond-
ing to intervention. These data are also used to guide the differentiation of
instruction and/or changes to intervention provision after a set period of
FIGURE 2.1. Three-tier service delivery model for RTI.

time (e.g., 8 weeks). Typically, performance rate (e.g., improvement over
time) and level goals are set for each student, and students are monitored
to determine whether their performance (e.g., rate of growth and level) is
meeting predefined, data-based objectives (e.g., Fuchs, 2003).
Evidence-Based Instruction
and Intervention Provision
To maximize opportunities for student success, core instruction, supports,
and interventions provided within an RTI service delivery framework are
selected and monitored to ensure they are in alignment with practices found
through research to be effective in meeting students’ needs. Instruction
and interventions are chosen and evaluated based on empirical support for
their content and instructional method. Before selecting and implementing
interventions within an RTI service delivery framework, core programs are
regularly evaluated for their content and implementation fidelity and are
modified, if necessary, to help ensure that they are meeting the needs of most
students. Typically, once the core has been found to support at least 80%
of students, interventions are then selected based on their research support
and are regularly monitored throughout their implementation with students
requiring additional assistance.
Given the importance of empirically supported instruction and inter-
vention, several guides have emerged to support school personnel in the
selection process. This is particularly true in the area of reading (e.g., A
Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program Grades K–3: A
Critical Elements Analysis [Simmons & Kame’enui, 2003] and Guidelines
for Reviewing a Reading Program [Florida Center for Reading Research,
2007]).
Using Rigorous Research to Guide
RTI Service Delivery Implementation
Implementation of the aforementioned key service delivery components
based on theory and sentiment alone is insufficient for ensuring their success.
The impact of RTI is dependent upon the quality of component implemen-
tation. Accordingly, attention to credible evidence from methodologically
rigorous research on specific components (e.g., processes, interventions, and
assessments) continues to be critical for informing educators about aspects
of the implementation process that promote positive student outcomes.
Although existing research is useful in guiding the implementation of
key components (i.e., coordination of multiple stakeholders, multi-tier ser-
vice delivery, assessment and data-based decision making, and delivery of

instruction), additional investigations are needed to determine the utility of
specific practices required to implement RTI. To generate valid conclusions
from such research, attention to methodological rigor is needed. Further, the
educational community must consider (a) whether accumulated evidence is
sufficient to make informed judgments and (b) whether research contexts
studied pertain to real-world applications of interest (Glover & DiPerna,
2007; Kratochwill, Clements, & Kalymon, 2007).
Consideration of Existing and Needed Research
on Key Service Delivery Components
Although research on service delivery for RTI has begun to emerge, there is
an ongoing need for the continued investigation of the impact and utility of
specific aspects of implementation. Specific research recommendations are
described in subsequent chapters in this book; however, at least three gen-
eral research foci will be important to consider in the ongoing appraisal of
the state of research designed to inform practice (Glover & DiPerna, 2007).
First, it will be helpful to consider research on the overall impact and util-
ity of process and practices provided within an RTI service framework. It
will be important to evaluate existing and needed research on outcomes
associated with implementing entire multi-tier models and specific model
features. In addition, it will be useful to evaluate the effects and resource
demands associated with specific instructional approaches and interven-
tions and the utility of (a) assessment protocols used for screening and
monitoring students’ progress and (b) approaches for engaging multiple
stakeholders in collaborative decision making (Glover & DiPerna, 2007;
Kovaleski, 2007).
Second, to determine which approaches are optimal for assessing stu-
dent performance and promoting student success, it will be important to
evaluate the effects of systematically varying specific processes and prac-
tices. Multiple investigations examining the impact of intervention alterna-
tives within tiers as well as aspects of these interventions (e.g., composition,
intensity, and individualization for specific students) will be useful in deter-
mining which interventions are most effective with which students during
various stages in the implementation process. Investigations of variations
in assessment procedures and protocols will also be helpful in ascertain-
ing which approaches are optimally useful for informing instructional and
intervention decisions.
Finally, to determine which supports are useful and necessary for main-
taining RTI service delivery within schools, it will be important to evaluate
the outcomes of various system-level capacity-building approaches and their
specific features. Especially helpful will be the consideration of research on
the efficacy of approaches for professional development and ongoing per-

sonnel support (and the feasibility and fidelity of these approaches; Glover
& DiPerna, 2007).
Methodological Considerations for Research
on Processes and Practices
In addition to considering the focus of existing and needed research on key
components of RTI, educators must also attend to the rigor with which the
research is conducted. Stakeholders who generate educational decisions and
allocate resources based on inaccurate research conclusions inadvertently
negatively impact (sometimes significantly) the lives of the students they
intend to support. The appropriateness and quality of a research approach
dictate the confidence with which conclusions can be made. Although vari-
ous aspects of the research process are important, in considering research
on RTI service delivery process and practices (i.e., research evaluating the
coordination of multiple stakeholders, multi-tier service delivery, implemen-
tation of instruction or intervention), attention to the use of an appropriate
research design warrants special consideration (Glover & DiPerna, 2007).
Both the type of research design that is selected and the manner in
which the design is implemented are critical for determining whether evi-
dence from a research study is appropriate for generating inferences about
impacts in real classrooms. Although a review of research methodology is
beyond the scope of this chapter, common approaches used in educational
research to evaluate the impact of processes or practices involve the use
of pre–post, matched, single-case, or randomized experimental designs.
Before describing the gold standard (randomized experiments), it is impor-
tant to acknowledge practical advantages and disadvantages of alternative
designs.
Pre–Post Design
The primary benefit of the pre–post design, in which pre- and postinterven-
tion data are compared to investigate an intervention’s effectiveness, is its
simplicity and ease of use in school settings. Despite its practical appeal,
without a control group, it is impossible to rule out other factors such as
historical events (e.g., other practice or policy changes occurring during the
same time that the intervention takes place), the effects of repeated assess-
ment (e.g., previous assessment exposure or test learning effects), or par-
ticipant maturation (e.g., natural development-related increases in perfor-
mance) as equally plausible alternative explanations for any observed study
findings. As a result, conclusions from pre–post investigations are often
invalid (Myers & Dynarski, 2003; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
A common example illustrating the invalidity of pre–post designs is a

highly visible randomized trial of Even Start, a literacy program for disad-
vantaged families that was found to have no impact on children’s school
readiness. Had a pre–post design been implemented in this case, investiga-
tors would have observed an increase in school readiness for program par-
ticipants. Without knowledge of a comparable increase in school readiness
for control participants (who did not receive the intervention), they would
have erroneously concluded from the pre–post study that Even Start (rather
than an equally plausible explanation, such as the children’s natural devel-
opment) led to the observed improvement in performance (U.S. Department
of Education Institute of Education Sciences, 2003).
Matched Comparison Group Designs
To help alleviate concerns about random assignment of participants to
research conditions, matched comparison group designs, in which control
participants are selected based on similarity with respect to specified charac-
teristics to those receiving an intervention, have been regarded as a plausible
alternative. Unfortunately, despite the convenience in the selection of con-
trol participants, an inability to match on vital variables while accounting
for other important differences in participant characteristics or experiences
prevents investigators from determining whether comparison groups within
a matched design are characteristically different. This potential incompara-
bility makes it difficult to rule out other plausible explanations for observed
study findings attributed to differences between the intervention and control
participants (e.g., differences in experience, local policies/practices, motiva-
tional factors; Shadish et al., 2002).
Agodini and Dynarski (2004) provide an example among several from
the empirical literature illustrating the potential invalidity of matched com-
parison group designs. In evaluating the impact of dropout prevention pro-
grams, they found that, even when using sophisticated matching techniques,
matched designs were unable to replicate findings from well-implemented
randomized trials, and that, in some cases, the use of a matched approach
actually led to different study findings (i.e., programs found effective through
one approach were found ineffective using the other). Unfortunately, in this
case, given the importance of dropout prevention, policy decisions based
on invalid conclusions from matched designs could have profound conse-
quences impacting many students’ lives.
Single-Case Designs
Single-case designs involving the observation of individual-case (e.g., indi-
vidual participant) data are also commonly used in educational settings
and regarded as a practical, efficient alternative to resource-intensive group

designs. Unfortunately, simple single-case designs, such as A-B or A-B-A
designs, which involve repeated observations of case data during a baseline
phase before intervention (A), throughout an intervention phase (B), and, in
the case of the A-B-A design, during a phase once the intervention has been
removed (A), fail to rule out as alternative explanations for observed out-
comes some threats to validity such as other historical events that occur dur-
ing the introduction or removal of intervention. The concurrent multiple-
baseline design, which typically involves collecting data on multiple cases
at the same points in time while delaying the introduction of phases across
individual cases to compare not only within but also across cases, provides
a significantly improved alternative to simple single-case methods. Unfortu-
nately, despite its strength in reducing alternative explanations for observed
findings, data analytic approaches for this design (as with any single-case
method) do not permit a high degree of certainly about the likelihood of
observed study outcomes (Levin, 1992; Shadish et al., 2002). This presents a
significant problem in generating policy or practice recommendations and in
considering the allocation of resources based on single-case study findings.
Randomized Experiment: The Gold Standard Research Design
The best possible design in maximizing the confidence with which study
conclusions can be attributed to the process or practice of interest (and
not alternative explanations for observed outcomes) is a well-implemented
randomized experiment (or randomized trial). In randomly assigning inter-
vention recipients (e.g., students, classrooms, teachers) to intervention or
control conditions, systematic differences between compared groups other
than the intervention itself are minimized, leading to increased confidence
in attributions about the impact of the process or practice under investiga-
tion. As Levin and O’Donnell (1999) note, a well-implemented randomized
design takes into account the potential of systematic variation (other than
the intervention provision itself) at the level at which the intervention is
provided (e.g., student, classroom, school). Accordingly, the benefits of ran-
domization are optimized when random assignment and intervention pro-
vision take place at the same level (e.g., when an intervention is provided
individually to students and the students, not classrooms, are randomly
assigned; or when an intervention is provided to entire classrooms, and the
classrooms, not schools, are randomly assigned). Given their superiority in
ensuring that there are no systematic differences between intervention and
comparison groups other than the presence or absence of an intervention (or
variations of an intervention) under investigation, well-implemented ran-
domized experiments provide the strongest possible evidence for informing
policy, practice, and decisions about the allocation of resources.

Methodological Considerations for Research
on Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
As with investigations of processes and practices, attention to method-
ological rigor is also needed in considering research on assessments and
data-based decision making. Within an RTI service delivery framework,
assessments and accompanying data-based instructional decision-making
criteria are used to periodically screen students to determine their level of
performance relative to benchmark expectations and to regularly monitor
students’ response over time. Although several aspects are important in
considering the appropriateness of assessments for each of these functions,
attention to the use of appropriate methods for determining measurement
reliability and validity is especially critical for helping to ensure that the cor-
rect data-based decisions are made to promote student performance. The
consequences associated with inadequate attention to methodological rigor
in psychometric investigations are great. Poorly tested, unreliable, or invalid
measures yield inconsistent or inaccurate indicators of student performance,
which can lead to erroneous determinations about student response to
instruction or intervention and the need for additional supports. As a result
of poor assessment precision, students may not receive and subsequently
benefit from much-needed services.
Correlational approaches are useful in investigating the reliability of
both screening and progress monitoring assessments. By obtaining corre-
lation coefficients ranging in value between 0 and 1 (with higher values
indicating greater reliability), investigators are able to discern the strength
with which (a) items or sets of items are related to the total assessment out-
come (internal consistency), (b) students’ levels of performance on multiple
administrations of the same assessment are related (test–retest reliability),
(c) multiple forms of an assessment are related (alternate form reliability),
and (d) the scoring of an assessment is consistent across scorers (interscorer
reliability).
Multiple approaches are helpful in investigating the validity of assess-
ments. Correlational methods are useful for determining the degree to which
(a) items or subscales within an assessment are measuring the same general
construct (construct validity), (b) an individual assessment item is effective in
discriminating between those at different performance levels (item discrimi-
nation), or (c) the assessment is concurrently related to other assessments
designed to measure the same construct (concurrent validity). Descriptive
investigations of proportions of students are also beneficial for determining
the difficulty of individual assessment items (item difficulty). In addition,
comparisons between subgroups using nonparametric, contingency table, or
item response theory approaches are useful for determining differential item

functioning for those with specific demographic characteristics (e.g., males
vs. females; Glover & Albers, 2007; Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2004).
In evaluating screening assessments, special attention to an instru-
ment’s accuracy in distinguishing between students who are and are not at
risk for experiencing difficulties (predictive validity) in the future is war-
ranted. Predictive validity is especially important within an RTI framework,
given the need to identify at-risk students and to provide intervention before
pervasive academic difficulties significantly impede students’ progress and
negatively impact long-term outcomes. Although assessment developers
sometimes use correlational approaches to investigate predictive validity,
these methods fail to determine an instrument’s accuracy in correctly iden-
tifying individual students (and caution should be exercised in adopting
screening assessments with only correlational evidence of predictive valid-
ity; Satz & Fletcher, 1988). A classification approach is a better alternative
for determining the proportion of students for whom a screening instru-
ment correctly predicts subsequent performance difficulties. A classification
approach yields several important indicators of an instrument’s accuracy in
predicting subsequent performance difficulties, including the instrument’s
sensitivity (proportion of students correctly identified among those actually
at risk), specificity (proportion of students correctly identified among those
actually not at risk), positive predictive value (proportion of students cor-
rectly identified among those identified as at risk), and negative predictive
value (proportion of students correctly identified among those identified as
not at risk; Glover & Albers, 2007; Satz & Fletcher, 1988).
The Accumulation of Relevant Evidence
to Guide Practice
In considering all research on key components of service delivery for RTI, it
is crucial to note (a) whether accumulated evidence is sufficient for making
informed educational decisions and (b) whether the research contexts stud-
ied pertain to the applications of interest. As educators implement practices
relevant to service delivery for RTI, it will be important to take into account
guidelines from professional organizations and to exercise discretion in the
review of evidence supporting various processes and practices. Given con-
cerns about the impact of a research approach on the validity of research
conclusions, task force guidelines presented by professional organizations in
the social, behavioral, and educational sciences typically recommend that at
least one randomized experiment demonstrate positive effects for a process
or practice for it to be considered efficacious or effective. These guidelines
commonly suggest that educators cautiously regard processes or practices
supported solely by single-case or matched designs until evidence of effi-
cacy or effectiveness is demonstrated via randomized experiments. Unfortu-

nately, although there is sufficient support for the efficacy and effectiveness
of processes and practices to meet professional guidelines in select domains
(e.g., in the content of reading instruction/intervention), research evidence
pertaining to several content areas (e.g., mathematics, writing, behavioral
supports) has historically been limited with respect to empirical rigor. As a
result, educators are forced to make educational decisions without sufficient
empirical guidance.
In the absence of a strong research base established via random-
ized experiments, members of the educational community must take into
account the best available evidence. In light of the methodological limita-
tions previously described for alternative research designs, Institute of Edu-
cation Sciences (IES) guidelines established by the Board of Advisors from
the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy recommend that educators regard
evidence from pre–post investigations as inappropriate for making educa-
tional decisions. As previously described, findings from pre–post studies on
a wide range of educational processes and practices (e.g., the previously
mentioned investigation of Even Start; investigations of various academic
curricula, instructional strategies, intervention programs, and technological
innovations) are especially problematic in establishing evidence given their
vulnerability to confounding influences and potential invalidity. IES guide-
lines further recommend that findings from matched comparison group
research be considered as a means of “establishing ‘possible’ evidence of ...
effectiveness, and thereby generating hypotheses that merit confirmation in
randomized controlled trials” (U.S. Department of Education, IES, 2003,
p. 4). Evidence from well-designed single-case studies may also be useful
in considering practices delivered to individual students; however, as previ-
ously indicated, it is important to acknowledge that analytic approaches for
this form of research do not permit a high degree of certainly about the like-
lihood of observed study outcomes. This may present significant limitations
in generating policy or practice recommendations that pertain to multiple
students in various contexts that may or may not resemble those that were
studied.
Contextual relevance is also important in considering support from
empirical research. Processes or practices useful in certain settings for spe-
cific individuals may not be appropriate in other contexts. For example, in
the area of reading, although there may be extensive support for the efficacy
of a fluency intervention in assisting students who have acquired basic pho-
nological awareness, the intervention may not benefit those who have not
yet mastered phoneme identification, segmentation, or blending. Although
attention to all possible student and contextual variables impacting contex-
tual relevance is impossible, consideration of factors for which there is an
empirical or theoretical justification for context-specific appropriateness is
important.

Implementation Fidelity
Another final consideration pertaining to the quality of integration of key
service delivery components for RTI, implementation fidelity, warrants spe-
cial attention. In transporting research-supported processes and practices
into school settings, alignment of local efforts with implementation proto-
cols specified by developers and in empirical studies is critical for ensuring
that educators are able to replicate positive outcomes found in research.
Unfortunately, as articulated by Gansle and Noell (2007), local implementa-
tion efforts without regular attention to fidelity are apt to deteriorate over
time, making it difficult to discern whether processes and practices as con-
ducted will effectively meet students’ needs. By monitoring fidelity adher-
ence and providing periodic maintenance training as needed, school person-
nel are able to maximize opportunities for the quality implementation of
key components.
Although extensive additional empirical investigations are needed to
determine optimal approaches for monitoring and maintaining fidelity,
professional guidelines and emerging research suggest that careful consid-
eration of at least three aspects related to the maintenance of implanta-
tion fidelity is needed (Gansle & Noell, 2007; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, &
McKnight, 2006). First, to help facilitate ongoing monitoring and mainte-
nance of fidelity, attention should be given to the involvement of multiple
stakeholders in the collection and analysis of fidelity-monitoring data. The
participation of administrators, who set and enforce expectations about
fidelity adherence, and teachers and well-trained staff members, who col-
lect and analyze fidelity data, can be useful for increasing buy-in and the
perceived utility of the fidelity-monitoring process (Kovaleski, Gickling, &
Marrow, 1999).
Second, consideration of objectivity in fidelity assessment is needed for
determining the accuracy of fidelity judgments. Commonly used methods of
fidelity data collection include self-appraisal, direct observations, and per-
manent products. Although self-appraisal (e.g., use of teacher self-report
checklists to identify level of adherence) is perhaps the easiest and most
efficient approach, it has often been found to be upwardly biased (e.g., Gan-
sle & Noell, 2007; Noell et al., 2005; Wickstrom, Jones, LaFleur, & Witt,
1998). A more objective alternative involves conducting direct observations
and collecting and coding permanent products (e.g., instructional materials,
student work samples) at multiple points in time by trained personnel to
determine the level of adherence to critical steps/components preidentified
for implemented processes and practices (Gansle & Noell, 2007). A hybrid
fidelity assessment approach, whereby schools use efficient self-appraisal
approaches accompanied by periodic direct assessment validations of fidel-

ity, may be most practically feasible for use in schools. Additional investiga-
tions of this approach are warranted to determine its accuracy and utility.
Finally, attention to the quality of protocols for promoting fidel-
ity adherence (e.g., training or feedback protocols) is needed. In addition
to assessing the alignment of content foci with needs identified through
fidelity assessments, it is also important to consider whether approaches
for bolstering fidelity address factors responsible for drift in implementa-
tion. As Gresham and his colleagues (e.g., Gresham, MacMillan, Beebe-
Frankenberger, & Bocian, 2000; Reschly & Gresham, 2006) posit, several
factors may reduce the fidelity of implementation, including (a) the com-
plexity of implementation guidelines, (b) the level of resources required,
(c) stakeholder perceptions about effectiveness, and (d) the motivation and
expertise of implementation agents. Two promising approaches with dem-
onstrated support for fidelity maintenance include (a) the provision of direct
training in process and practice components (i.e., the use of rehearsal or
feedback training; e.g., Sterling-Turner, Watson, & Moore, 2002; Watson
& Robinson, 1996) and (b) the use of performance feedback in reviewing
implementation data (e.g., DiGennaro, Martens, & McIntyre, 2005; Jones,
Wickstrom, & Friman, 1997; Noell et al., 2005).
Bridging the Research–Practice Divide
The success of RTI implementation will likely depend on the quality of the
implementation of key service delivery components. By attending to cred-
ible evidence from methodologically rigorous research on specific compo-
nents and by monitoring and maintaining alignment between local efforts
and empirically supported protocols for implementation, educational
stakeholders will maximize opportunities to promote positive student
outcomes. By further continuing to critically evaluate aspects of service
delivery for RTI, researchers, practitioners, and other members of the edu-
cational community can work together to refine processes and practices
to better meet students’ needs. School stakeholders (e.g., administrators,
school psychologists, special educators, classroom teachers) can collabora-
tively identify and implement processes and practices supported by exist-
ing empirical evidence and inform researchers about the ongoing need for
future investigations. Researchers can, in turn, communicate with school
personnel to identify and investigate pressing aspects of practical signifi-
cance. In the absence of empirical research, mutual consultation among
educational stakeholders with professional knowledge and experience in
schools will be useful for advancing educational decisions pertaining to
service delivery for RTI.
Just as RTI data are used to inform ongoing decisions about the need

for refinement and adaptation of educational supports to meet students’
needs, so too can empirical investigations be used to inform existing efforts
and to investigate additional questions about how to best implement com-
ponents of the larger model of service delivery for RTI. Several consider-
ations are provided both within this chapter and throughout the remainder
of this book to guide researchers and practitioners in seeking out evidence
to validate the implementation process. It is hoped that these considerations
will be useful in advancing research-informed practice that creates an opti-
mal learning environment to support all students.
References
Agodini, R., & Dynarski, M. (2004). Are experiments the only option? A look at
dropout prevention programs. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1),
180–194.
DiGennaro, F. D., Martens, B. K., & McIntyre, L. L. (2005). Increasing treatment
integrity through negative reinforcement: Effects on teacher and student behav-
ior. School Psychology Review, 34, 220–231.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2007). Guidelines for reviewing a reading
program. Tallahassee: Author.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172–186.
Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention imple-
mentation is assessing response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns,
& A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp.
244–251). New York: Springer.
Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screen-
ing assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135.
Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to interven-
tion: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology
Review, 36, 526–540.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M.
(2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we
really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 15(4), 198–205.
Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsivness to
intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Center on Learning
Disabilities.
Jones, K. M., Wickstrom, K. F., & Friman, P. C. (1997). The effects of observa-
tional feedback on treatment integrity in school-based behavioral consultation.
School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 316–326.
Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Response to intervention: Considerations for research and
systems change. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–540.
Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., & Marrow, H. (1999). High versus low implemen-

tation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity.
Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170–183.
Kratochwill, T. R., Clements, M. A., & Kalymon, K. M. (2007). Response to inter-
vention: Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. In S. R.
Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response
to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
25–52). New York: Springer.
Levin, J. R. (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: Comments and con-
cerns. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and
analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 213–225). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s
credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5, 177–229.
Myers, D., & Dynarski, M. (2003). Random assignment in program evaluation and
intervention research: Questions and answers. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education Institute of Education Sciences.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K.
L., et al. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consulta-
tion in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology
Review, 34, 87–106.
Reschly, D. J., & Gresham, F. M. (2006, April). Implementation fidelity of SLD
identification procedures. Presentation at the National SEA Conference on SLD
Determination: Integrating RTI within the SLD Determination Process, Kansas
City, Missouri.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education
(9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Satz, P., & Fletcher, J. M. (1988). Early identification of learning disabled children:
An old problem revisited. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
824–829.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). A consumer’s guide to evaluating a core
reading program grades K–3: A critical elements analysis. Eugene: University
of Oregon, College of Education.
Sterling-Turner, H. E., Watson, T. S., & Moore, J. W. (2002). Effects of training
on treatment integrity and treatment outcomes in school-based consultation.
School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 47–77.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustain-
ing school-aide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35,
245–259.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying
and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user
friendly guide. Washington, DC: Author.
Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to
achieve integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe

and effective schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Inter-
ventions for academic and behavior problems: II. Preventative and remedial
approaches (pp. 1–25). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psy-
chologists.
Watson, T. S., & Robinson, S. L. (1996). Direct behavioral consultation: An alterna-
tive to traditional behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 11,
267–278.
Wickstrom, K. F., Jones, K. M., LaFleur, L. H., & Witt, J. C. (1998). An analysis of
treatment integrity in school-based behavioral consultation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 13, 141–154.

23
3
Multi-Tier Service Delivery
Current Status and Future Directions
Joseph F. Kovaleski
Lynanne Black
Since its earliest conceptualizations, response to intervention
(RTI) has been associated with a multi-tier service delivery (MTSD) format.
Indeed, the terms are often used interchangeably. For example, Torgesen
(2007) has articulated that RTI has been understood as both an instruc-
tional delivery system and an assessment methodology. Consequently, it is
perhaps necessary to start this chapter by differentiating RTI and MTSD.
RTI has been defined as “the practice of providing high-quality instruction
and interventions matched to student needs and using learning rate over
time and level of performance to make important educational decisions”
(Batsche et al., 2005, p. 5). MTSD is a structure for planning and organiz-
ing the provision of increasingly intense interventions delivered in general,
remedial, and special education. Typically, assessment of a student’s RTI is
the vehicle by which decisions are made regarding the provision of services
and supports within an MTSD model.
This chapter reviews recent attempts to scale up MTSD in local educa-
tion agencies (LEAs) or on a statewide level. Although the list is not exhaus-
tive, we have identified a number of the most salient models that are cur-
rently in operation. We also look retrospectively at some of the models that
were precursors to contemporary MTSD structures. In doing so, we address
critical program features that are common to most approaches to MTSD as
well as those that are unique to particular projects.
For simplicity, throughout the chapter we describe the basic MTSD
structure as a three-tier model. Although various MTSD projects have used

different numbers of tiers (typically three or four), we utilize the three-tier
format described by the National Association of State Directors of Spe-
cial Education (NASDSE; Batsche et al., 2005) when discussing the overall
approach. In brief, Tier 1 relates to the provision of a comprehensive gen-
eral education program, including core curricula that are aligned with state
or national standards, along with appropriate supplemental supports that
aim to help teachers differentiate students in their classrooms. Tier 2 refers
to more intensive interventions, programs, and services that are provided
over a limited period of time to individuals or small groups of students
beyond the regular classroom in an attempt to improve their performance
and bring them closer to expected levels of proficiency. Tier 3 corresponds
to very intense services that are provided to individual students over longer
periods of time. It includes special education as well as other general educa-
tion programs that are also of high intensity and long duration.
We also, in this chapter, refer to critical program features of both the
precursor models and contemporary MTSD systems, often using these
“ingredients” to distinguish between the two. First, both historically and
currently, teaming is a foundational aspect of all of these efforts. Schools
have impaneled groups of teachers, specialists, and administrators to make
decisions and orchestrate services. Typically, these teams use the problem-
solving process (Tilly, 2008) as their common operating procedure. Second,
teams have increasingly used data from student assessments to guide deci-
sion making. These data may be derived from general screenings of all stu-
dents, in-depth assessments of students’ academic skills, and progress moni-
toring of individual students. Third, teams have designed interventions for
students who fail to meet desired benchmarks, either on an individual basis
or collectively in groups of students who display similar needs.
This chapter also covers various types of outcome data that schools
have used to evaluate the effects of these practices, including improvements
in overall student achievement, progress of individual students, referrals to
special education, and consumer satisfaction. It is not our goal to review the
foundational literature on particular program features such as curriculum-
based measurement (CBM), progress monitoring, standard protocol inter-
ventions, or problem-solving teaming. Rather, we examine the evidence that
currently exists regarding the effectiveness of precursor models and current
MTSD structures. In doing so, we also address aspects of MTSD that have
not as yet been empirically tested or fully supported and make recommenda-
tions regarding needed research directions.
Precursors of MTSD
In this section, we review the history of team-based attempts to provide
enhanced supports in general education to struggling students. These initia-

Multi-Tier Service Delivery 25
tives have featured as their central organizing structure a team of teachers
and other specialists typically using some variant of the problem-solving
process (Tilly, 2008) as its central modus operandi. We particularly high-
light those models that have served as precursors to current, more fully
articulated MTSD structures. These precursor models have the following
aspects in common: (1) They predate the use of the RTI terminology, (2)
they are generally based on the implementation of problem-solving teams,
and (3) they include aspects of contemporary MTSD models but do not
fully address all tiers as currently conceptualized. Although these pioneer-
ing efforts have provided a conceptual and procedural basis of the contem-
porary MTSD format, they are frequently misunderstood as full multi-tier
models. Consequently, their inclusion here not only serves a historic func-
tion but also will be used to distinguish the critical features of the fully
implemented MTSD models.
Overview of Problem-Solving Teams
Over the past 30 years, beginning with teacher assistance teams (TATs) in
the late 1970s (Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979), various scholars, state
department officials, and local practitioners have developed team-based
structures that have attempted to assist teachers in meeting the needs of
difficult-to-teach students. Among the labels used over the years are prob-
lem-solving teams (Tilly, 2003), mainstream assistance teams (Fuchs, Fuchs,
& Bahr, 1990), intervention assistance teams (Graden, 1989), instructional
consultation teams (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996), instructional support
teams (Kovaleski, Tucker, & Stevens, 1996), and prereferral intervention
teams (Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985). There have also been thou-
sands of locally developed teams with an even wider variety of titles. In fact,
a recent survey of state officials regarding these practices (Truscott, Cohen,
Sams, Sanborn, & Frank, 2005) indicated that 69% of states required prere-
ferral intervention and a full 86% recommended that these interventions be
provided using a team format. Further, in a separate survey of 200 randomly
selected schools in 50 states, these researchers found that 85% of the schools
had prereferral teams. These incidence rates were substantially higher than
those cited by Buck, Polloway, Smith-Thomas, and Cook (2003), who found
that 43% of the states required prereferral intervention processes and an
additional 29% recommended them, data that were similar to those gath-
ered a decade earlier by Carter and Sugai (1989). Another indication of the
prevalence of these team approaches is the regular occurrence of summary
articles and reviews over the past 30 years, including Nelson, Smith, Taylor,
Dodd, and Reavis (1991); Schrag and Henderson (1996); Sindelar, Griffin,
Smith, and Watanabe (1992); Safran and Safran (1996); and Bahr, Whitten,
Dieker, Kocarek, and Manson (1999).
In spite of their common use of the problem-solving process, these

various models have a number of different features (Bahr & Kovaleski,
2006). Tracing the development of different models over the years, increas-
ing sophistication and differentiation can be seen, with different specialists,
assessment procedures, and modes of intervention being added to the basic
TAT model, in which teachers consulted with peers in a generally qualita-
tive manner. Consequently, it is difficult and perhaps erroneous to draw
general conclusions about their overall effectiveness. One attempt to discern
overall effects was the meta-analysis conducted by Burns and Symington
(2002). Identifying a small number of qualifying studies of prereferral inter-
vention teams, these researchers found significant effect sizes for a number
of dependent variables, including teacher ratings and observed behavior. A
particularly interesting aspect of this study was the greater effect sizes for
university-based initiatives compared with field-based initiatives, a finding
that speaks to the importance of treatment fidelity in assessing the impact
of these teams. Nonetheless, given the wide diversity in program features as
well as the paucity of studies that are analyzable through meta-analysis, it
is perhaps more useful to examine some of the most salient of the problem-
solving team models. As we review some of these early efforts, it is interest-
ing to note the gradual evolution of personnel and procedures attendant to
each approach.
Teacher Assistance Teams
As initially articulated by Chalfant et al. (1979), TATs featured teams of
teachers working together to identify problems, set goals, brainstorm solu-
tions, monitor implementation, and evaluate outcomes. Specialists and
administrators were specifically not involved in these deliberations, because
the TAT was conceptualized as an egalitarian process. Verbal consultation
techniques were the predominant mode of problem solving. Chalfant and
Pysh (1989) reported the results of these efforts in an analysis of five stud-
ies on 96 teams implementing TATs, finding that teachers using TATs rated
large percentages of students as meeting their set goals. There was also some
evidence reported of decreases in referrals to special education and of teach-
ers’ satisfaction with the TAT process.
Instructional Support Teams
Pennsylvania was perhaps the first state to mandate that elementary schools
implement prereferral teams. The Instructional Support Team (IST) Project
operated from 1990 to 1997 and succeeded in implementing ISTs in more
than 1,700 schools (Kovaleski & Glew, 2006). The membership of ISTs
included a team of teachers, although specialists (e.g., remedial teachers,
school psychologists, counselors) were encouraged to participate. Unlike
TATs, the school principal was also included as a critical team member.

Using the problem-solving process as its basic operating procedure, the IST
model featured a thorough curriculum-based assessment (CBA; Gickling &
Rosenfield, 1995) of the student and the establishment of an intervention in
the classroom by a specially designated support teacher.
In an extensive study of Pennsylvania’s statewide IST data, Hartman
and Fay (1996) found that the typical IST worked with approximately 9%
of the school population in a given year. The success rate of ISTs, defined
as the percentage of IST-served students who were not referred for further
evaluation for special education, averaged 84% each year. Referrals to spe-
cial education decreased in IST schools compared with schools that had not
yet implemented IST. In reviewing these data, Kovaleski and Glew (2006)
expressed the opinion that referrals to special education were particularly
decreased in IST schools when the process was fully utilized. In perhaps the
first study that attempted to directly assess the impact of prereferral team
intervention on student performance, Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and
Swank (1999) found that students served by ISTs improved on measures of
academic learning time compared with students with similar needs in non-
IST schools, but only when the IST schools implemented the process with a
high degree of fidelity.
Instructional Consultation Teams
Rosenfield and Gravois’s (1996) instructional consultation teams (ICTs)
predated Pennsylvania’s IST model and are still in operation in many
schools, predominantly in the Middle Atlantic states. Like ISTs, ICTs utilize
an expanded team membership and enhance the problem-solving process
with the collection of CBA data and ongoing progress monitoring. The pre-
dominant difference between the two models is that ICTs feature a case
management approach to teacher support. Students identified for ICT sup-
port are reviewed by the team, which assigns one of its members to consult
more intensively with the classroom teacher. ISTs, on the other hand, utilize
a single support teacher to provide most of this teacher consultation. ICTs
also serve as an organizing structure for professional development activities
in the school. Gravois and Rosenfield (2006) reported that, in addition to
overall decreases in referrals to special education, schools using ICTs also
showed a decrease in the disproportionate representation of minorities in
special education. It is believed that this study is the first to investigate the
effects of prereferral teaming on this important variable.
Creative Problem-Solving Teams
In the last 10 years, the state of Indiana has implemented Creative Problem
Solving for General Education Intervention (CPS-GEI) teams in more than
239 schools (Bahr et al., 2006). These teams used a version of the problem-

solving process in which brainstormed ideas were funneled through a best-
practices perspective to develop interventions. Results indicated positive
outcomes on a number of variables based on a satisfaction survey of CPS-
GEI team members compared with members of teams that did not receive
CPS-GEI training.
MTSD Models
The precursor models that have been described were pioneering efforts
that generally produced beneficial effects on a number of critical variables.
Although each of these models included procedures and structures that are
often components of MTSD systems, those features are typically found only
at Tier 2 of contemporary models (Kovaleski, 2007). Since these models
were initiated in the 1990s, a number of research-based procedures and
other promising practices have been articulated as essential aspects of a fully
formed MTSD system. The two most salient of these practices are the use
of universal screening and its analysis as a method of improving implemen-
tation of research-based core curricula in Tier 1 and the use of “standard
protocol” interventions as the primary method of intervening with students
at Tiers 2 and 3.
The advent of large-scale academic screening measures designed for
use at periodic intervals throughout the school year has revolutionized
the way in which schools gather information and make decisions about
students’ responses to the general curriculum and instructional program.
Instruments such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2005), AIMSweb (Shin & Shinn, 2002),
4Sight (Slavin & Madden, 2006), STAR Early Literacy (Renaissance
Learning Inc., 2008a), STAR Literacy (Renaissance Learning Inc., 2008b),
and STAR Mathematics (Renaissance Learning Inc., 2008c) have allowed
schools to collect data on important literacy and numeracy skills for all of
their students in an efficient manner. By assessing students approximately
three times per year, schools can identify which students are in need of
further supports beyond Tier 1. Shapiro and his colleagues (Shapiro, Kellar,
Lutz, Santoro, & Hintze, 2006; Shapiro, Solari, & Petscher, 2008) have
demonstrated that these types of measures, both individually and in tandem
(e.g., DIBELS and 4Sight), are highly predictive of student performance on
state basic skills tests.
In addition to their use in identifying students in need of further inter-
vention, Kovaleski and Pedersen (2008) have articulated procedures by
which data analysis teams can assist teachers in making improvements to
the overall instructional program at Tier 1. The schoolwide application
of universal screening, particularly the use of problem-solving teaming to

improve instruction at Tier 1, represents a significant advancement beyond
the problem-solving team format embodied in the precursor models. In
essence, these procedures have operationalized unique features of the first
tier of an MTSD system. Historically, problem-solving teams in the precur-
sor models utilized the problem-solving process to customize individualized
interventions for students who were experiencing particular performance
deficits (cf. Tucker & Sornson, 2007). Although this function has been car-
ried forward in most MTSD systems, a critical difference is that Tier 1 data
analysis teams in MTSD systems examine group data to make classwide
changes to instructional procedures and to identify interventions for groups
of students at Tier 2.
The second critical feature that differentiates the precursor models from
many of the current comprehensive MTSD systems is the use of standard
protocol interventions at Tiers 2 and 3. As conceptualized by Fuchs, Mock,
Morgan, and Young (2003), these interventions feature the “use of the same
empirically validated treatment for all children with similar problems in a
given domain” (p. 166). In contrast to the individualized student-by-student
approach in which interventions are selected or created by a problem-solv-
ing team, standard protocol interventions are intended to be implemented
with a very high degree of fidelity with groups of students based on similar
assessment results. These interventions are typically commercially produced.
The rationale behind the use of standardized approaches to intervention
was captured well by Reyna (2004), who noted that “despite the intuitive
appeal of the familiar slogan ‘one size does not fit all,’ some educational
practices are broadly effective; they can be generalized widely across con-
texts and populations” (p. 56). How standard protocol interventions are
implemented in an MTSD system is discussed as representative projects are
reviewed in the following sections.
At this point, we review those projects and initiatives that have put
MTSD systems in place at an LEA, regional, or statewide level. We investi-
gate critical program features of each model and examine any available data
on outcomes.
Heartland Area Education Agency
The Heartland Area Education Agency (AEA) in Iowa has a long history of
utilizing problem-solving teams to address student needs, and their pioneer-
ing efforts as a precursor to MTSD have been well documented (Ikeda, Tilly,
Stumme, Volmer, & Allison, 1996; Ikeda et al., 2007; Tilly, 2003, 2008).
Their efforts are included in this section because, unlike some other precur-
sors, Heartland AEA has continued to evolve their model and presents as
a fully articulated MTSD at this time. Heartland’s original model was a
four-level approach in which teachers expressing a concern about a student

had access to consulting specialists (e.g., school psychologists) at Level II
before proceeding to extended consultation with a problem-solving team,
an approach similar to that described by Graden, Casey, and Christenson
(1985). Recently, however, Heartland has moved from a four-level approach
to a three-tier model. In describing this transition, Tilly (2003) explained
the need to move from an individualized approach to one that addresses
the needs of more students. At Level 1, learning problems of groups of
students are identified through universal screening using DIBELS, and stu-
dents’ needs are addressed through modification of the core instructional
curriculum. At Level 2, supplemental instructional resources are added to
core instruction. Level 3 consists of intense services provided to individ-
ual students. Throughout these three levels, Heartland has maintained the
problem-solving process as its central operating method. They have also
incorporated data-based progress monitoring procedures, implemented
curriculum-based evaluation (Howell & Nolet, 2000) to inform decision
making at later levels, and infused their selection of strategies with research-
based practices. Results of these changes have indicated decreases in special
education placements over an 8-year period in 36 schools (Tilly, 2003). Sig-
nificantly, however, in addition to this traditionally used measure of effec-
tiveness, Heartland has also begun to investigate the effects of its MTSD
model on overall performance in general education, finding that students in
121 implementing schools increased their overall proficiency rates on three
DIBELS measures over a 4-year period.
Florida’s Problem-Solving/RTI Model
Florida’s Problem-Solving/RTI model (Batsche, Curtis, Dorman, Castillo,
& Porter, 2007; Florida Department of Education, 2006) is a good exam-
ple of a statewide approach to scaling up an MTSD model that features
RTI. Three salient aspects characterize Florida’s approach (1) the project
is embedded in the general education program, (2) the model is based on
a series of earlier statewide initiatives, and (3) the project is being initiated
in a small number of pilot schools. The Florida model is a three-tier frame-
work: In Tier 1, schools are encouraged to use evidence-based practices
based on scientifically supported curricula in the general classroom; in Tier
2, a problem-solving team forms and orchestrates more intensive interven-
tions that are supplemental to core instruction and are implemented over
a short period of time in small groups; in Tier 3, more long-term inter-
ventions are individualized by the problem-solving team and may lead to
or include special education. The suggested amount of time allocated for
Tier 2 and 3 interventions ranges from 15 to 30 weeks. Florida has also
required that all kindergarten students be screened with DIBELS, and that
progress monitoring be conducted using CBM and DIBELS in all Reading

First schools. Like the Heartland model, the central operating procedure is
problem solving; however, there is some indication that standard protocol
interventions (although not identified by that term) are encouraged in that
interventions are intended to be “scripted or very structured ... with a
high probability of producing change for most at-risk students” (Florida
Department of Education, 2006, p. 4). Significantly, the Florida project
also includes screening and intervention in regards to student behavior as
well as academics. To date, Florida’s pilot project has been implemented
in 18 schools in three school districts. Results of the project have yet to
be published.
Ohio Integrated Systems Model
Like Heartland AEA, the Ohio Integrated Systems Model (OISM) has
evolved from a problem-solving team structure into a full MTSD system
(Graden, Stollar, & Poth, 2007). Historically, Ohio utilized an interven-
tion assistance team (IAT) model, which was based on the work of Graden,
Casey, and Christenson (1985) and had much in common with the origi-
nal Heartland model. In developing the OISM, Ohio harvested a number
of state initiatives to add to its foundation in IATs, including a large pilot
program involving intervention-based assessment in the 1990s. The OISM
appears to have a strong basis in general education and links with the state’s
efforts at schoolwide improvement and accountability. It features a three-
tier model that integrates both behavior and academics. Tier 1 of the OISM
includes research-based core instruction with the goal of improving overall
rates of literacy and appropriate student behavior. All students are screened
for both academics (typically with DIBELS) and behavior (using office disci-
pline referrals). In Tier 2, targeted interventions are added for those students
displaying difficulty with the core program. These interventions are crafted
by a problem-solving team that analyzes needs of groups of students and
plans for supplemental small-group instruction. Frequent progress moni-
toring conducted at Tier 2 provides the team with feedback on the success
of the interventions and targets students needing more extensive supports
at Tier 3. At this stage, the problem-solving team designs intensive, indi-
vidualized supports that supplement the student’s continued involvement
in the core instruction. Both Tiers 2 and 3 are general education programs
and lead to consideration for special education only if the student fails
to respond to these intensive interventions. In addition to these features,
the OISM also incorporates efforts to use culturally responsive practices.
Graden et al. (2007) report that OISM is being implemented in more than
300 schools on a voluntary basis, although there are clear indications that
a full statewide scaling-up is being planned. At this time, no results of this
program have been published.

Pennsylvania’s RTI Model
Although the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pioneered the IST model in
the 1990s, their recent effort in developing a comprehensive MTSD has
taken a different direction and is only indirectly connected to the IST model.
The Pennsylvania model features three tiers, all within general education
(Shapiro & Kovaleski, 2008). Tier 1 includes the provision of standards-
aligned curricula and universal screening of reading using either DIBELS
or AIMSweb at early grades and 4Sight in intermediate and middle grades.
(Some schools are also screening for math skills using AIMSweb, 4Sight,
or other instruments.) Grade-level data analysis teams are utilized at Tier
1 to analyze universal screening data for the purpose of assisting Tier 1
instruction for all students. In Tiers 2 and 3, standard protocol interven-
tions are implemented, typically during extra periods of supplemental “tier
time.” Data analysis teams match these interventions to students’ needs as
indicated by universal screening data as well as progress monitoring, which
occurs twice per month at Tier 2 and weekly at Tier 3. Procedures typically
associated with the problem-solving approach are utilized at Tier 3 if stan-
dard protocol interventions fail to produce the desired outcomes. Eligibil-
ity for special education is considered if a student at Tier 3 fails to make
acceptable progress. Although Pennsylvania’s RTI model has been piloted
in seven elementary schools, numerous other schools throughout the state
have received local or regional training and are implementing the model
according to state guidelines. Preliminary results have indicated increases
in the number of students reaching proficiency and more students moving
from more intensive to less intensive services compared with less intensive
to more intensive services (Shapiro & Kovaleski, 2008).
Illinois Flexible Service Delivery Model
Since 1994, a group of 19 school districts comprising the Northern Subur-
ban Special Education District (NSSED) has implemented the Flexible Ser-
vice Delivery System (FSDS; Peterson, Prasse, Shinn, & Swerdlik, 2007).
Originally based on the Iowa (i.e., Heartland AEA) problem-solving model,
the FSDS has evolved into a three-tier model based on the NASDSE frame-
work (Batsche et al., 2005). Similar to other models, Tier 1 in the FSDS
model consists of the provision of research-based curricula and instruction
in general education, and in Tier 2 selected interventions are provided to
students who struggle in the general education program. Tier 3 consists of
intensive interventions that are typically provided through special educa-
tion. Here again, problem solving serves as the organizing principle embed-
ded in a team structure. Universal screening (typically through DIBELS) and
progress monitoring using CBM are essential aspects of the model.

The Illinois group has designed an extensive program evaluation com-
ponent to assess the outcomes of FSDS. Results of a survey of both parents
and education staff have indicated that respondents are satisfied with the
implementation of FSDS (Peterson et al., 2007). Parents attended 91% of
FSDS problem-solving meetings, and a great majority of those parents indi-
cated that they had a better understanding of their children’s needs and the
process facilitated their children’s success in school. Surveyed school person-
nel also gave the opinion that students served by the FSDS system improved
academically and behaviorally. A review of individual case files indicated
that 75% of the goals for students served were met, exceeded, or showed
some improvement in performance. During the years of the program evalu-
ation, referrals for special education eligibility remained stable, although
the authors reported a decreasing trend in initial evaluations. The NSSED
group also reported some interesting data about the three-tier process, not-
ing that an average FSDS intervention took approximately 24 days. In addi-
tion, almost half (48%) of the interventions were conducted by the class-
room teacher, with smaller percentages (6–17%) being conducted by special
education teachers, reading improvement teachers, teacher assistants, and
related services personnel.
Idaho Results-Based Model
Another statewide MTSD project is the Idaho Results-Based Model (RBM;
Callender, 2007). As of 2005, 150 elementary and secondary schools had
implemented this model, representing 40% of all districts within the state.
RBM is a systems-level, proactive, preventive approach that makes use of
standard protocol interventions. Level I/Tier I of this model consists of
basic/general education for all students in the school. Level II/Tier II, which
consists of standard protocol treatments delivered via small-group intensive
instruction by general education, Title I, and special education teachers,
is available to all students as needed. Level III/Tier III consists of targeted
individual interventions conducted by general education, Title I, and spe-
cial education teachers. Level IV/Tier IV consists of special education pro-
gramming and an individual education plan and essentially entails intensive,
long-term services.
Idaho’s RBM incorporates several key elements, including formative
system evaluation, early identification of problems, and evaluation of a
problem’s context. When schoolwide programs are not effective, problem-
solving teams are used to create a student intervention plan (I-plan) for
student problems. The RBM utilizes a modified version of Bransford and
Stein’s (1984) IDEAL model of problem solving. Teams of four to eight
people meet weekly, and the student’s I-plan and progress are examined over
a 9- to 27-week period. Functional assessment is used to enhance problem

analysis and to “identify specific skill deficits for instructional purposes/
identifying appropriate programming” (Callender, 2007, p. 334), with the
goal of matching students’ skills to their prescribed interventions. Teams
emphasize outcome-oriented interventions by establishing a list of research-
based, standard protocol programs available for each grade level and for
specific areas of concern. Progress monitoring data are collected at the
benchmark (universal screening assessment, Level I), strategic (assessment
every 3–4 weeks, Level II), and intensive levels (assessment two times per
month, Level III). Parents are actively involved in the process, participating
in team problem solving and home-based interventions. Finally, schools use a
dual-discrepancy approach for determining eligibility for special education.
Eligibility requirements include discrepancy from peers, multiple indicators,
response to intervention, and the need for specially designed instruction.
To evaluate the Idaho RBM, special education information from
schools participating and not participating in the model was collected and
analyzed. Between fall of the 2002–2003 and fall of the 2004–2005 school
years, enrollment in statewide special education increased by 1%. Districts
with at least one RBM school (most districts had more than one school)
demonstrated a 3% decrease in special education placements, with RBM
reportedly accounting for the majority of the decrease. Furthermore, the
reading skills of 1,400 students in kindergarten to grade 3 improved, and
those students in RBM schools with intervention plans progressed signifi-
cantly more than those in schools without intervention plans (effect size of
1.10; Callender, 2007). It was also reported that practitioners’ knowledge,
skills, and perceptions of the problem-solving teams increased from 26 to
90% from pre- to post-assessments. In addition, there was a high degree of
satisfaction in first-year schools implementing RBM because of a decrease in
students “falling between the cracks” (p. 340). Finally, Callender reported
that neither problem-solving teams nor standard protocol interventions
alone addressed the needs of all the students in schools.
RTI in Minnesota
Although there have been no published reports of a statewide initiative for
RTI, a number of school districts in Minnesota have reported on efforts to
implement MTSD systems. Four models from this state are discussed: Min-
neapolis Public Schools, the St. Croix River Education District, the Chisago
Lakes School District, and the East Central School District.
The Minneapolis Public Schools implemented a four-step problem-
solving model (PSM), including defining the problem; selecting and imple-
menting an intervention; monitoring the student’s progress and response to
intervention through the use of CBM, district assessment, and state assess-
ment data; and repeating the sequence if the child is not making progress

(Marston, Lau, & Muyskens, 2007). Teachers in the district developed a
manual outlining an introduction to CBM, administration guidelines and
probes, as well as district norms and comparisons of these data with state-
wide assessment data. These steps were implemented through three stages.
Stage 1 of the PSM is classroom interventions, in which classroom teach-
ers are asked to define the difficulties of the student, collect baseline data,
choose an intervention, and document the results. In Stage 2, the PSM team
puts in place high-quality, research-based interventions and reviews data
6 to 8 weeks after the intervention begins. Teams are typically composed
of the regular education teacher, a social worker, a school psychologist, a
special education teacher, an administrator, and other specialists as needed.
During Stage 3, the focus is on an evaluation of the need for special edu-
cation services. Students receive intensive interventions, which may be so
successful that special education services are not warranted. In this case, a
child is identified as a student needing alternative programming (SNAP). If
not, Stage 3 involves an evaluation for special education, which includes the
progress monitoring data collected during the MTSD process.
Marston et al. (2007) reported that using PSM did not significantly
reduce the prevalence of students with high-incidence disabilities, nor did it
reduce the number of students identified with learning disabilities or mild
mental retardation. However, disability terms were replaced with SNAP cat-
egorization. On the other hand, students participating in the PSM showed
higher achievement levels than those in the traditional setting. Furthermore,
students participating in the PSM were provided with specialized interven-
tions at a younger age than those in the traditional setting.
The St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) in Minnesota devel-
oped its MTSD model with a focus on improving reading achievement in
kindergarten through eighth grade (Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007).
SCRED administers benchmark assessments three times per year, strategic
assessments once a month, and intensive assessments once a week. Bench-
mark assessments are conducted with all students in general education (Tier
I), strategic assessments with students who have needs beyond what can
be provided in general education (Tier II), and intensive assessments with
students who have needs well beyond what can be provided in general edu-
cation (Tier III). Instructional changes implemented in this district’s pro-
gram were based on research in the area of reading and reading instruction,
including the primary areas of reading skill development and how these
reading skills should be taught. SCRED uses a problem-solving organiza-
tion that includes (1) continued measurement of all students throughout
the school year and frequent measurement of students needing strategic and
intensive interventions, (2) grade-level team meetings consisting of grade-
level teachers who meet to review student achievement at least once per
month, (3) grade-level scheduling so that basic skill instruction is commonly

Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics

Μέσ' 'ς τα εμπόδια, και βαρεί
Η ρομφαία σου κτλ.↩
59] Στρ. 55.
Κ' εκεί απάνου έλαβαν πλήθια
Αγκαλιάσματα, φιλιά.↩
60]
Στρ. 86.
Εβασίλευεν η βία,
Η αρπαγή και ο σκοτωμός.
Και η τούρκικη τυραννία έφθασε εις το άκρον· τότε οι
ερμιαίς και τα βουνά έγειναν προσκυνητάρια ελευθερίας,
εγιομίσανε θεούς, και οι αντίλαλοι ηχολήγησαν από άρματα
και υψηλά τραγούδια.
Βουνά, λόγγοι, και γκρεμοί,
Λευθεριάς προσκυνητάρια,
Και τα πάτησαν θεοί.↩
61] Στρ. 139.
Αρχινά και ξεσκεπάζεται
Άλλος κόσμος φανερός,
Και κάθε άλλο σκοταδιάζεται
Και του κρύβεται απ' εμπρός.
Όθε της αιωνιότης
Του ηχολόγησε η φωνή
Με ηχολόγισμα δικό της·
Τέτοιο τέλος είναι αρχή.
Στρ. 140.
Όμως μέσ' 'ς τα σκοταδιάσματα
Του θανάτου τα στερνά,
Του απομείναν δύο φαντάσματα
Ολοζώντανα και ορθά.↩
62] Στρ. 143. Με την τρέμουσα αγκαλιά.↩

63] Στρ. 149.
'Σ την ταφή του χύνει η έρμη
Βρυσομάννα το νερό,
Που του δρόσισε τη θέρμη,
Εις το ψυχομαχητό.
Εις την πέτρα του τρεχάτο,
Και καθάριο το νερό,
Που το αισθάνθηκε δροσάτο,
Χύν' η βρύση τα νερά της
Εις την πλάκα, που κρατεί,
Κ' είχε στείλη τη δροσιά της,
Εις την ύστερη στιγμή.
Χύν' η βρύση με την πάχνη
Το καθάριο της νερό,
Που του δρόσισε τα σπλάχνη,
Στην ταφή του δροσισμένο
Μουρμουρίζει το νερό,
Μέσ' 'ς το στήθος το καημένο
Οχ το ψυχομαχητό.
Γέρνει ετιά μυρολοΐστρα
Εις την πλάκα που τον κλει·
Ούτε σάλπιγγες και σείστρα
Αν λαλήσουνε αγροικεί.↩
64] Στρ. 158.
Γιατί ξάφνου 'σε λιγάκι
Το φαγεί και το πιοτό
Δε τους έγινε φαρμάκι,
Να τους φάη το σωθικό;↩
65] Στρ. 162. 163.
Κάθε αδέξιο παλληκάρι,
Που εις της μάχης τη σφαγή

Είχε πέση ωσάν λιοντάρι,
Που αποθαίνοντας ξεσκλεί·
Κάθε γέρος, κάθε κόρη,
Κάθε ανήλικο παιδί,
Όπου τύραννοι αιμοβόροι
Είχαν διώξη από τη γη.
Ενώ εφταίγανε όσο φταίγουν
Τετραήμερα τ' αρνιά,
Οπού ωρφάνεψαν και κλαίγουν
Με βελάσματα συχνά.
Κατά δαύτονε κινιούνται
Με μεγάλη επιθυμιά,
Και θωρώντας τον βαστειούνται
Σαστισμένοι από μακρυά.↩
66] Racine Bajazet↩
67] Και 'ς το χέρι στεφάνι κρατεί↩
68]
Εγώ μαι πέτρα του γιαλού, μαύρ' είμαι πέτρα κ' έρμη
Κι' αν για λίγη ώρα μοναχά, πλούτον δικό σου δίνω.↩
69] Εις το χειρόγραφο του ίδιου ποιήματος ευρέθηκαν
σημειωμένοι και οι εξής δύο στίχοι:
. . . . . Δένει σταυρό 'ς το στήθος
Που γροικά μέσα τη χαρά και το φιλί του Πάσχα.
(Σ. Ε. Κ. 1857)↩
70] Του «Λάμπρου» τ' αποσπάσματα δημοσιεύοντ' εδώ
καθώς επρωτοφάνηκαν 'ς την έκδοση της Κερκύρας (Σ. Ε. Κ.
1859), τακτοποιημένα μέσ' από τα χειρόγραφα του ποιητή· η
υπόθεση του ποιήματος, ρυθμισμένη από τον εκδότη· τα
πεζά σχεδιάσματα, που συμπληρώνουν τους στίχους,
μεταφρασμένα από την ιταλική, τη γλώσσα που ο Σολωμός
συνείθιζε να πρωτοσχεδιάζη πεζογραφικά τους στίχους του.
↩

71]
Κ' έπειτ' απ' τα κρυφά λόγια που κάμνουν,
Παίρνουν κουπί τσακισμένο και λάμνουν.↩
72]
Με το μπαμπάκι του Χάρου 'ς το στόμα
Να σου και η κορασιά και με σιμώνει·↩
73]
Κ' ενώ φουσκώνει αισθάνομαι τη βρώμα
Του λιβανιού που την καρδιά πλακώνει,
Και το χέρι που τρέμει ωσάν καλάμι
Μου δείχνει το σταυρό 'ς την απαλάμη.↩
74] Να σηκώσω κεφάλι από το κύμα.↩
75]
'Σ του αιθέρος την έρημη γαλάζιαν αγκάλη
Τη λάμψη του Έσπερου θωρώ να προβάλη,
Και βγαίνει η δροσόβολη πνοή του βραδιού·
Κ' εκεί μέσ' 'ς το δύστυχο τ'ς Αυγούλας κρεβάτι
Τα λούλουδα εσκόρπουνε φυσώντας δροσάτη,
Την κόμη ανακάτωνε τ'ς Αυγής και τ' Ανθού,↩
76]
Κ' έμεινε η μάννα τους
Σ τη συφορά.↩
77] Ελεεινά.↩
78] «Κατόπι αυτής της στροφής ευρίσκεται σβυμένη η εξής·
Σιωπή τα σήμαντρα
Οπού τα κλάψαν,
Σιωπή τα σύνεργα
Οπού τα θάψαν,
Σιωπή τα ψάλματα
Τα λυπηρά». (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859).↩
79]
Νά μπη, αλλά μάταια, —
Πισθοδρομίζει,

Και παίρνει απ' έξωθε,
Και τριγυρίζει
Το περιτείχισμα
Πασπατευτά.↩
80]
Και αυτή από λύπησι
Τετυφλωμένη↩
81]
Βραχνό το ψάλσιμο
Του καλογήρου,
Αχνά τα εντάφια
Κεριά τριγύρου.↩
82]
Θαμπογυρίζει εδώ κ' εκεί το βλέμμα,
Και την όψη θωρώ σαν δίχως αίμα.↩
83] Μίλειε, Λάμπρε, και πες μου ό,τι κι αν ήναι.↩
84] Α! του Θεού μ' επλάκωσε η κατάρα.↩
85] Τόσο λεπτό.↩
86] Στέκει 'ς το παραθύρι ως για να πάρη↩
87]
Και τάστρα τουρανού εις τη γαλήνη
Το πέλαο καθαρόστρωτο αναδίνει.↩
88] «Η Ιό νι ο ς Ανθο λο γί α (1834) και κατόπι της όσοι
εξανατύπωσαν τούτο το κομμάτι, έχουν
Και κατ' ΑΥΤΩΝ τη σπίθα της τινάζει.
Είναι όμως βέβαιον ότι ο ποιητής είπε και έγραψε:
Και κατ' ΑΥΤΟΝ τη σπίθα της τινάζει.
Εννοώντας, ως το βλέπει καθένας, ε κε ί νο ν πο υ σ ήμε ρα
ανασ τήθη. » (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859).↩

89] «Θέτω εδώ, όχι ως άλλη γραφή, αλλά δυσκολευόμενος
πού αλλού να ταις θέσω αρμοδιώτερα, ταις εξής στροφαίς, αι
οποίαις ίσως δεν εγράφθηκαν ειμή ως δοκίμιον Μέτρου·
Φωνούλα με πίκρα με κράζει·
Εκύτταξα απάνου και κάτου·
Πετειέται κρεβάτι θανάτου,
Κλειούν θύραις, ανοίγουν, χωρίς
Ν' ανοίξη, να κλείση κανείς.
Ανοίγοντας, κλειώντας, οι θύραις
Καμμιά δεν εκάναν αντάρα·
Με πιάνει μεγάλη τρομάρα·
«Αχ!» κάνει το στόμα να πη,
Και βγαίνει χαμένη φωνή.
Παγαίνει το πόδι 'ς τη θύρα,
Που κλειέται και πλια δεν ανοίγει·
Ξετρέχει 'ς την άλλη να φύγη,
Και κλειέται, και φθάνει μ' ορμή
'Σ την τρίτα, και κλειέται κι' αυτή. (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859). ↩
90] «Εις το χειρόγραφο του Λάμ προ υ ευρίσκεται n εξής
στροφή.
Κ' ενώ το στόμα ανοιγοκλεί
Πoυ μου έσταξε φαρμάκι,
'Σ τα χείλη του αναδεύεται
Tο νεκρικό βαμπάκι.» (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859).↩
91] «Τούτης της στροφής η εικόνα ευρίσκεται διαφορετικά
παραστημένη εις τους εξής στίχους.
Γιατί ενώ περπατεί και παραδέρνει
Όπου δεν είν' παρά νερά, κλωνάρια,
Ο παραλογισμός του ομπρός του φέρνει
Τ' άθλια του κρίματός του απομεινάρια.» (Σ Ε. Κ. 1859).↩
92] Α. Σ. Ζ. 1880.↩
93] Εμψυχώνεις τερπνά την ησυχία↩

94] «Σκοπός του ποιήματος ήταν να παραστήση τη σκιά του
Ομήρου οπού επρόσταζε τον ποιητή να γράφη τη δημοτική
γλώσσα.» (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859).↩
95]
Εκινούσε το φύσημα του αέρος
Τ' αριά τα μαλλιά του όλ' ασπρισμένα.↩
96] Εδώ ίσως είναι κατάλληλος τόπος για να βαλθή το
ακόλουθο κομμάτι, από τα πρώτα του ποιητή:
Κάθε ρείθρο ερωτεμένο,
Κάθε αύρα καθαρή,
Κάθε δέντρο εμψυχωμένο,
Με το φλίφλισμα ομιλεί·
Κι' όπου πλέον μοναχιασμένοι
Είναι οι βράχοι σιγαλοί,
Μ ή νι ν άε ι δε , θε ν' ακούσης
Να σου ψάλλη μια φωνή.↩
97]
Το νέο χώμα αραχνιασμένο
Πέφτω χάμου και φιλώ·
Έρμα σπίτια του Θανάτου,
Πόσο εγώ σας αγαπώ!
(Με το αραχνιασμένο στόμα
Τα νέα χώματα φιλώ·
Έρμα σπίτια του νεκρώνε,
Πόσο εγώ σας αγαπώ!)
Τέλος βρίσκομαι 'ς τον Άδη,
Και τα σπίτια του πατώ·
Χρυσά σπίτια, χαιρετώ σας,
Και τη σκόνη σας φιλώ.
Χρυσά σπίτια, χαιρετώ σας!
Ξάφνου κ' ελαφρά πατώ σας.
Καρδιακά σας χαιρετώ!
Πέφτω με το στόμα κάτου,

Χρυσά σπίτια του Θανάτου,
Και το χώμα σας φιλώ.↩
98]
Τώρα επλάκωσε ο χρυσός μου,
Να ναι πάντα εδώ μ' εμέ·
Εδώ κάτω πλάσμα τέτοιο
Δεν εφάνηκε ποτέ.
Εδώ κάτω αχνάρι τέτοιο
Δεν εστήθηκε ποτέ.↩
99] Άδεια κι' άλαλη και μαύρη.↩
100]
Όλοι οι ήσκιοι ακούν κυττώντας
Τ' αχνό μέτωπο της νιας,
Οπού ετρέμαν τα λουλούδια
Τα λευκά της παρθενιάς.
Ήτανε προσηλωμένοι
Εις το μέτωπο της νιας
101]
Ξάφνου ο Άδης μουρμουρίζει.
Ξάφνου εστάθηκε η φωνή
Της παρθένας, οπού πέφτει
Στην αγκάλη του εραστή.
Τ' όμορφο κοράσι πέφτει
Στην αγκάλη του εραστή.
Σαν τ' αυλάκι 'ς την πεδιάδα
Την ανθούσιμη κυλά,
Λίγη παίρνοντας μοσχάδα.
Πολλή αφίνοντας δροσιά.
Και το παν κατασωπαίνει
. . . . . . . . . . .
Ουδέ φύλλο, ουδέ ζωΰφι,
Ουδέ ρεύμα, ουδέ πνοή.
Και χωρίς να ξέρω πώς,

Για το θάνατο μιλούσε
Πως θε νά τανε γλυκός.
Μη μακρύς καιρός με βάλη
'Σ αλλουνού την αγκαλιά.↩
102]
Η νέα πλάση ερωτεύεται
'Στα δυνατά τραγούδια·
'Στο μέτωπό σου τρέμουνε
Τα εμπάρθενα λουλούδια.
Τρέμουν τα θεία 'ς το μέτωπο
Της παρθενιάς λουλούδια.↩
103] «Φαντάζεται ο ποιητής ότι ενώ όλοι οι Κερκυραίοι
εορτάζουν χαρμόσυνα τον ερχομό του νέου βασιλέα της
Ελλάδος, ο οποίος διαβαίνει από την Κέρκυρα, ένας
γέροντας Κρητικός αποστρέφεται την κοινή χαρά, και φεύγει
εις ένα ξωκκλήσι, και αυτού κλαίει τη δουλεία της μητρικής
του γης.» (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859). ↩
104] Ας γένη αίμα το κρασί 'ς το νυμφικό ποτήρι. ↩
105] «Ο ποιητής είχε σχεδιάση ένα ποίημα, οπού έμπαινε ο
Ανατολικός πόλεμος και η Επανάσταση της Ηπείρου. Από
αυτό μας μένουν οι δύο στίχοι, οι οποίοι αποτελούν το
επίγραμμα, και ο εξής·
Αχ! πού ν' ο ύπνος ο γλυκός και τ' όμορφ' όνειρό του.
Εφαίνετο εις τα δάση της Θεσσαλίας η Σκιά του Αχιλλέα,
προς τον οποίον ο ποιητής έλεγε·
Η πρώτη που σ' αγάπησε του κόσμου φαντασία,
κ' έκοβε κλαδί δάφνης κ' εστεφάνωνε τον πολεμιστή Χατζή
Πέτρο».
(Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859).↩
106] Ευγενικό της θάλασσας νέο πνεύμα παινεμένο.↩

107]
Στον καθρέφτη π' αμέσως εδέχτη
Τη λαμπρή της παρθένας εικόνα.↩
108] Οπ' άνθιζεν ο τρίτος σου θεοτικός Απρίλης. ↩
109] Σκύφτω 'ς την πλάκα ↩
110] Παρθέν', από το γόνυ μου κι' από το φίλημά μου. ↩
111] Ακίνητα τα κάτασπρα ποδάρια 'ς τη δροσούλα. ↩
112]
Το δέντρο σπρώχνει ανάερα πολλαίς κλαδιά χιλιάδες.
Κ' εδώ πουλί να μη ζητάς, να μη γυρεύης χλόη.
Φύλλα πολλά 'ς κάθε κλαδί, και 'ς κάθε φύλλο πνεύμα.
Κ' ηχολογούσε κι' άστραφτε το μέγα δέντρο, κ' είχε
Όλους της τέχνης τους ηχούς και τ' ουρανού τα φώτα.
Σαστίζ' η γη κ' η θάλασσα κι ο ουρανός το θαύμα,↩
113] Για τους 24 πρώτους στίχους των αποσπασμάτων (1, 2,
3) σημειώνεται 'ςτην έκδοση της Κερκύρας (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859)
ότι «ο ποιητής έγραφεν ένα ποίημα, σκοπός του οποίου ήταν
να ζωγραφίση την τωρινή κατάσταση του Ελληνικού
Έθνους, και το μέλλον του.» Το ποίημα τούτο ο Σολωμός
ωνόμαζε Carmen Seculare, από το όνομα της γνωστής ωδής
του Ορατίου. ↩
114] Ο στίχος είναι ο μόνος βγαλμένος από το Ιταλικό
σχεδίασμα La Madre greca· ο ποιητής έμελλε, κατά τη
συνήθειά του, να το στιχουργήση ελληνικά, καθώς και άλλα
τρία πεζά ιταλόγλωσσα σχεδιάσματα La donna velata,
L'usignolo e lo sparviere, Orfeo· άγνωστο αν έγειναν. ↩
115] «Άννα η Κομνηνή ιστορεί ότι ο Αλέξιος, ο πατέρας της,
στρατηγός τότε του προκατόχου του Νικηφόρου του
Βοτανειάτου, ενώ συνοδοιπορούσε με τον επαναστάτη
Νικηφόρο Βρυέννιο, δούκα του Δυρραχίου, τον οποίον
αυτός είχε νικήσει και κάμη αιχμάλωτο, κοπιασμένος του
δρόμου επέζεψε, να ησυχάση αποκάτω εις πολύφυλλο
δέντρο. Ο Βρυέννιος έμεινε έξυπνος, κ' ενώ εσυλλογίζετο τη
συμφορά του, σηκώνει τα μάτια και βλέπει το σπαθί του
στρατηγού κρεμάμενο από το δέντρο, και του έρχεται ο

στοχασμός να σώση τον εαυτό του φονεύοντας τον εχθρό
του. «Και ίσως το έκανε» λέγει η ιστοριογράφος «αν κάποια
δύναμις άνωθε δεν τον εμπόδιζε, ημερώνοντας την
εξαγριεμένη ψυχή του, ώστε αυτός έμεινε με τα μάτια ιλαρά
προσηλωμένα εις τον Αλέξιο.»
Ο Σχίλλερ, εις τη Διατριβή του· «Πόσον ωφελεί τα ήθη η
φιλοκαλία,» αναφέρει τούτην την πράξη, εις την οποίαν,
λέγει, η φυσική ορμή αναγνωρίζει Κριτή το λόγο, και ευθύς
εις αυτόν υποτάσσεται. ↩
116] Με σκούξιμο πολύ μακρυά πολύν καιρόν αντήχαν ↩
117]
Μα τα μυστήρια τ' άχραντα οπού τα μνέω και τρέμω,
Μα την ημέρα τη στερνή . . . . . . . . .
Όταν θ' αντιβοήσουν οι νέοι αντίλαλοι, όχι πλέον οι
παλαιοί που έμαθαν
τη βλαστήμια και τη ψευτιά . . .
Από του ανθρώπου τη μιλιά, που ναι πνοή του Πλάστη.↩
118]
Βάρει, καλή μου Σαλπιγγα, και τα σεμνά της κάλλη,
Τα δροσερά, τα ευωδικά, να ξανανθίσουν πάλι,
Κ' εγώ ξυπνώ και γλήγορα το σάβανο τινάζω,↩
119] Τρέμουν οι ανθοί 'ςτο πρόσωπο πού ναι σαν άστρο νέο
↩
120] Έψαλλε την Ανάστασιν ο ωραίος αποσπερίτης ↩
121]
Κι ο κόσμος που ετίμησε λίγο καιρό πατώντας,
Το κάψιμό του αργοπορά μακρυοσπιθοβολώντας.↩
122]
Σαν περιβόλι ευώδησε και τ' άνθη του ήταν τ' άστρα.
Σαν περιβόλι ευώδησε και λουλουδιάζει απ' άστρα↩
123]
Λες και εσυνέβηκε μυστήριο εις τη φύση,

Που την εστένεψε γλυκά τέτοια μορφή να ντύση
Κάτι κρυφό μυστήριο εστένεψε τη φύση
Την αγριάδα να γδυθή κι' όλο ομορφιαίς να χύση
Όλ' ομορφιαίς να στολιστή και το θυμό ν' αφήση·↩
124]
Φυσηματιά παραμικρή το πέλαο δε βγάνει,
Σε περιβόλι να σειστή ή ρόδο ή τουλουπάνι.↩
125]
Αλλά το φως του φεγγαριού, σαν να φυσούσε ανέμι,
Στρογγυλό, μέγα, λαγαρό, κοντά 'ςτην κόρη τρέμει.
Σαν νά θελε να φιληθή το αθάνατο ποδάρι,
Έτρεμε, δίχως να φυσά, κοντά της το φεγγάρι.
Κ' εκείνο, πώμεινε, απ' αυτή βλέπω και ξεκολλειέται,
Και ησυχάζει ακίνητο αφού πολλή ώρα σειέται.
Απλώθη, ανακατώθηκε, το λαγαρό φεγγάρι.
Ανακατώθηκε πολύ το στρογγυλό φεγγάρι.
Έτρεμε τ' ολοστρόγγυλο και λαγαρό φεγγάρι.↩
126] ↩
Κρίνος τ' ανάστημα ψηλό, που ο ήλιος το φωτίζει,
Στέκει 'ςτο πέλαο σαν αφρός χωρίς να το συγχύζη.
Κυπαρισσένιο και χυτό τ' ανάστημα σηκώνει.
Κυπαρισσένιο ανάστημα με χάρι αντισηκώνει.
Κ' είχε τ'ς αγκάλαις ανοιχταίς π' αστράφτανε σαν κρίνοι.
Εις την αγάπη τ' Ουρανού, που τόσα δόξα εντύθη,
Μ' αγάπη ανταποκρίνεται, που τ'ς έτρεμαν τα στήθη.
Κι' ανάβρυσε κάθε ομορφιά και κάθε καλωσύνη.
Τέλος 'ςεμέ που βρίσκομουν ομπρός της μέσ' 'ς τα ρείθρα,
Εγώ το σίδερο κι' αυτή η πετροκαλαμήθρα,

Σ τη μυστική γαλήνη εγώ στημένος μέσ' 'ς τα ρείθρα
Μνέσκω σαν κατά τον Βοριά η πετροκαλαμήθρα·
Ωσάν Βοριάς αυτή, κ' εγώ σαν πετροκαλαμήθρα.↩
127]
Καν 'ς Εκκλησιά ζωγραφιστή, καν εις τη φαντασιά μου,
Καν όταν ήμουνα μικρός 'ς τ' άδεια τα ονείρατά μου.↩
128] Ήτανε γνώρα παλαιή κτλ. ↩
129]
Ωσάν το ρεύμα το γλυκό οπ' έξαφν' αναβρύζει
Από το σκότος του βουνού, κι' ο ήλιος το στολίζει,
Σαν από βράχο σκοτεινό βρύσ' ηλιοστολισμένη.
Σκοτεινού βράχου και βαθιού βρύσ' ηλιοστολισμένη.↩
130] Γνωρίζετε την άβυσσο κτλ. ↩
131] Τούτ' η ψυχή είναι βαθειά, κ' εγιόμισ' από πόνο. ↩
132]
Μια φούχτα από το χώμα της εγιόμισα κ' εβγήκα.
Εγιόμισα οχ το χώμα της ταις φούχταις μου κ' εβγήκα.↩
133] Κρεμιούμαι από την άβυσσο κι' αυτό βαστώ μονάχο. ↩
134]
Χαμογελά κ' εδάκρυσε 'ςτον πόνο της ψυχής μου,
Κ' εις τέτοιο σχήμα εφάνηκε πως μοιάζει της καλής μου.
Όμως εγίνηκ' άφαντη οχ του πελάου την άκρη,
Κι' αγροίκησα 'ςτο χέρι μου που μου έσταξ' ένα δάκρυ.↩
135]
Οπότε νύχτα αργά πολύ . . . . . .
Κ' ύπνος σκληρός πλια ζωντανά, τα ξαναφέρνει ομπρός μου·
Κ' η Θάλασσα, που μέσα της τ' αστροπελέκι σκάει,
Με τη φωνή του λιονταριού την κόρη μου ξυπνάει↩
136] Και τα νερά σχιζα μ' αυτό τα μυριομυρωδάτα. ↩

137] Και 'ςτο κεφάλι το χρυσό βαρεί το καρδιοχτύπι. ↩
138]
Αλλά το δεινό πλέξιμο γλυκά μ' αργοπορούσε . . . .
Πάει σαν αλάφι πώφυγε του κυνηγού τα βέλη,
Και φεύγει κι' από τ' ανθηρά κρεμάμενα κλωνάρια,
Κι' από τον μαύρον ήσκιο του σε ρεύματα καθάρια.↩
139]
Κι' ακούει κι' αυτή και πέφτουν της οι κρίνοι από τα χέρια.
Και τότε απλώνει, φεύγοντας, τα πράσινα φτερά του,
Και χάνεται όπως χάνονται όλα τα πάντα κάτου.↩
140]
Κι' ο ήλιος μεσουρανής ανάβρυζε λαμπράδαις,
Και του γελούσαν τα βουνά, τα πέλαγα, οι πεδιάδες.↩
141]
Κ' εκύτταα, κ' έκλαια, κι' άπλωνα τα χέρια με καμάρι.
Κι' απλώνω κλειώντας θλιβερά τα χέρια με καμάρι.↩
142] Ήταν εντύπωση ανεκδιήγητη, οποίαν κανείς ίσως δεν
εδοκίμασε, είμη ο πρώτος άνθρωπος, όταν
επρωτοανάπνευσε, και ο ουρανός, η γη, και η θάλασσα
πλασμένα γι' αυτόν, ακόμη εις όλη τους την τελειότητα,
αναγαλλιάζανε μέσα εις την ψυχή του, —
Γλυκειά ζωή, που το πουλί μισοπλασμένο ακόμα
Είχε πρωτύτερα αισθανθή με τον κηλαιδισμό του,
Και τον αέρα εχτύπουνε με το ζεστό φτερό του·
Κι' ο αέρας ο αμόλυντος, το δέντρο που 'χε ανθίση,
Το καρτερούσαν ν' ανεβή να πρωτοκηλαϊδήση, —
Έως οπού εις τη μέθη του νοός και της καρδιάς του, τον
έπιασε, σύμβολο του θανάτου, ο ύπνος, όθεν αυτός έμελλ'
έπειτα να ξυπνήση, και ευρεθή σιμά του
Της ομορφιάς βασίλισσα και να γενή δική του.↩
143]
Έφθασα τέλος 'ς το γιαλό την αρραβωνιασμένη,
Σφίγγω την μέσ' 'ςτην αγκαλιά, κ' ήτανε πεθαμένη.↩

144] «Νέος Άγγλος στρατιώτης εκατασπαράχτηκε από έναν
πόρφυρα (έτσι ονομάζεται στην Κέρκυρα το θαλασσινό
τέρας, το λεγόμενο και σμπρίλιος, σκυλόψαρο, και με το
αρχαίο του όνομα, σωζόμενον ακόμα, καρχαρίας) ενώ
εκολυμπούσε μέσα εις τον λιμένα της Κέρκυρας, και την
ακόλουθην ημέρα τα κύματα έβγαλαν εις τ' ακρογιάλι του
Κάστρου ένα απομεινάρι από το σώμα. Το πραγματικό αυτό
συμβεβηκός είναι η υπόθεσις τούτου του ποιήματος, του
οποίου δεν σώζεται ειμή εις ένα χειρόγραφο το πρώτο
άμορφο σχεδίασμα . . .» (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859) ↩
145]
Της Κόλασης οι δύναμαις σου στήθηκαν τριγύρου,
Άλλαις κρυφαίς, πολύ κρυφαίς, κι' άλλαις
ξεντροπιασμέναις.↩
146]
Βγαίνει το ρόδο θαυμαστό, πρώτη χαρά του ήλιου,
Αλλ' όμως δεύτερη, Καλέ, από το πρόσωπό σου!↩
147]
«Και χίλι' αστέρια 'ςτο λουτρό μ' εμένα κολυμπούνε!»
«Χίλι' άστρα 'ςτο λουτρό μ' εμέ, κ' εγώ, κ' εγώ, μ' εκείνα!»↩
148]
Κι' ανάμεσα 'ςτής θάλασσας και τ' ουρανού τα κάλλη,
Που ναι . . . 'ςτο φως δεμένα, 'ςτην αγάπη,
Είσαι κ' εσύ, κατσάβραχο, σα νύφη στολισμένο.
Στ' άνθη γελάς κ' είσ' όμορφο, χάσμα του βράχου μαύρο.
Κι' άφησες τ' όμορφο κλαδί για του γιαλού την πέτρα,
Κι' ασάλευτό σαι κατά δω, πουλάκι γυρισμένο·
Πες μου μη δεν είναι της γης τα μάγια της φωνής σου;↩
149]
Τ' αστρί 'ςτα κάλλη του καλούν, και πρέπει να προβάλη.
Και πρέπει νά βγη πάρωρα τ' αστρί 'ςτην ομορφιά του.
Κι' αν δεν είν' ώρα για τ' αστρί, θε να συρθή και νά βγη.↩
150]
Δεν τώλπιζα να ν' η ζωή μέγα καλό και πρώτο!

Αλλ' αχ! αλλ' αχ! να μπόρουνα σαν αστραπή να τρέξω!
Βγαλμέν' αστρί να μην είναι, και νά μαι γυρισμένος,
Με της μητρός μου φίλημα, με φούχτα γη της γης μου.↩
151]
Κ' η φύσις όλη του γελά και γένεται δική του.
Ελπίδα, τον αγκάλιασες και του κρυφομιλούσες,
Και του σφιχτόδεσες του νου μ' όλα τα μάγια πώχεις.
Νιος κόσμος δόξας και χαράς ανθίζει 'ςτην ψυχή του.
Αλλ' απαντούν τα μάτια του τρανό θεριό πελάγου.↩
152]
Αλλ' όπως έσχισ' εύκολα βαθιά νερά κ' εβγήκε,
Την τέχνη του κολυμπιστή και την ορμή της μάχης.↩
153]
Η μεγαλόψυχη πνοή ευτύχησε πριν πάψη·
Άστραψε φως κ' εγνώρισε γοργά τον εαυτό του.
Πριν πάψ' η μεγαλόψυχη πνοή χαροκοπειέται.↩
154] Τα Αποσπάσματα του ποιήματος Το Μ ε σ ο λό γγι , ήτοι,
Ο ι Ελε ύθε ρο ι Π ο λι ο ρκημέ νο ι , ανήκουν εις τρία
Σχεδιάσματα. Το αρχαιότερο ήταν, ως φαίνεται, συνθεμένο
εις είδος προφητικού θρήνου εις το πέσιμο του Μεσολογγιού,
και λυρικό εις το σχήμα· το δεύτερο, περιεχτικώτερο
σύνθεμα και επικό, εις το οποίον εικονίζοντο τα παθήματα
των γενναίων αγωνιστάδων εις ταις υστεριναίς ημέραις της
πολιορκίας έως που έκαμαν το γιουρούσι· το τρίτο,
ξανάπλασμα του δευτέρου, και εις το μέτρο, και εις τη
μορφή.
Εις την τάξη, την οποίαν έδωσα εις τα Αποσπάσματα του
κάθε Σχεδιάσματος, ακολούθησα την ιστορική συνέχεια,
όπου αυτή είναι φανερή.
Διάφοραις μελέταις εις το ποίημα περιέχουν τα χειρόγραφα·
τους στοχασμούς τούτους, εις Ιταλική γλώσσα γραμμένους,
αναγκάσθηκα να μεταφράσω και να τους προτάξω, ως
εισαγωγήν, εις τα τρία Σχεδιάσματα, διά δύο λόγους,
πρώτον, ότι τα νοήματα καθ' εαυτά είναι αξιόλογα·
δεύτερον, ότι αυτά είναι ωσάν η ψυχή ενός πλάσματος, του
οποίου δεν σώζονται ειμή κάποια μέλη ατελειοποίητα.

Είναι ομοίως μεταφρασμένα από την ιταλικήν όσα άλλα πεζά
απαντώνται εις τα Σχεδιάσμ. Β' και Γ'. (Σ. Ε. Κ. 1859).↩
155] Άλλη επιγραφή την οποίαν ήθελε κατ' αρχάς να βάλη
εις το ποίημα. ↩
156] Στα χειρόγραφα του ποιητή ευρέθηκαν, ξεχωριστά, και
οι εξής δύο σ το χασ μο ί :
«Ακολούθησε σταθερά τούτο. Ανάμεσα εις τα τρομερά ή
λυπηρά πράγματα, σφιχτά δεμένα, μία απλούστατη μικρή
κοντυλιά τερπνή (ή αντίστροφα), καθώς η εικόνα του μικρού
χλωρού βάτου εις τους άπειρους άμμους της Αφρικής.»
«Η Τέχνη σιωπηλή λατρεύει τη Φύση, και τούτη, ως
ανταμοιβή της μακρινής αγάπης, εβάλθηκε γυμνή να χορεύη
εμπροστά της. Εκείναις οι Μορφαίς αντιχτύπησαν εις το νου
της Τέχνης, και αυτή ταις εχάρισε των ανθρώπων.»↩
157] Εδώ ταιριάζει να μπη ένα κομμάτι πεζού σχεδιάσματος,
όπως το έγραψεν ο ποιητής, την εποχή που η Ζάκυνθος
εφιλοξενούσε πολλά γυναικόπαιδα, ριμένα εκεί από την
πολιορκία και το χαμό του Μεσολογγίου. Το κομμάτι
παρμένο είναι μέσ' από τα Προλεγόμενα του Πολυλά. (Σ. Ε.
Κ. 1859).
«1. Και εσυνέβηκε αυταίς ταις ημέραις οπού οι Τούρκοι
επολιορκούσαν το Μεσολόγγι· και συχνά ολημερνής, και
κάποτε ολονυχτής έτρεμε η Ζάκυνθος από το κανόνισμα το
πολύ.
2. Και κάποιαις γυναίκες μεσολογγίτισσαις επερπατούσαν
τριγύρου γυρεύοντας για τους άντρες τους, για τα παιδιά
τους, για τ' αδέλφια τους που πολεμούσανε.
3. Και 'ςτην αρχή εντρεπόντανε να βγούνε και επροσμένανε
το σκοτάδι για ν' απλώσουν το χέρι, επειδή δεν ήταν
μαθημέναις.
4. Και είχανε δούλους, και είχανε σε πολλαίς πεδιάδες γίδια,
βόιδια και πρόβατα πολλά.
5. Kαι ακολούθως εβιαζόντανε και εσυχνοτηράζανε από το

παραθύρι τον ήλιο, πότε να βασιλέψει, για να βγούνε.
6. Αλλά όταν επερισσέψανε οι χρείαις, εχάσανε την εντροπή·
ετρέχανε ολημερνής.
7. Και όταν εκουραζόντανε, εκαθόντανε 'ς τ' ακρογιάλι, και
συχνά ασηκώνανε το κεφάλι, κι ακούανε, γιατί εφοβόντανε
μη πέση το Μεσολόγγι.
8. Και ταις έβλεπε ο κόσμος να τρέχουνε τα τρίστρατα, τα
σταυροδρόμια, τα σπίτια, τα ανώγια, και τα χαμώγια, ταις
εκκλησίαις, τα ξωκκλήσια, γυρεύοντας.
9. Και ελαβαίνανε χρήματα, παννιά για τους λαβωμένους.
10. Και δεν τους έλεγε κανένας το όχι, γιατί οι ρώτησαις των
γυναικών ήταν ταις περισσότεραις φοραίς συντροφευμέναις
από ταις κανονιαίς του Μεσολογγίου, και η γη έτρεμε
αποκάτου από τα πόδια μας.
11. Και οι πλέον πάμπτωχοι εβγάνανε τ' οβολάκι τους, και το
δίνανε, και εκάνανε το σταυρό τους, κυττάζοντας κατά το
Μεσολόγγι και κλαίοντας.»↩
158]
Βαστώντας τη λύρα
Και μώκρουζ' η λύρα
Η δίκαιη στον ώμο.↩
159] Σουλιώτης και κλαίει. ↩
160]
Χαμένη γροικάνε
'Στου εχθρού τον αέρα
Μιαν άλλη, σαν να ναι
Τ' αντίλαλου πέρα.
Σκληρά περιπαίζει
Στου εχθρού τον αέρα.
Η απάνθρωπη μοιάζει
Τ' αντίλαλου πέρα.↩

161]
Εκάθησε εκηλάιδησε γλυκόφωνο πουλάκι.
Η μαύρη μάννα το φθονεί πως ηύρ' ένα σπειράκι.
Ήρθε, εκηλάιδησε γλυκά πουλί που ταξιδεύει,
Ηύρε σπειρί κ' επήρε το, κ' η μάννα το ζηλεύει.
«Μόνε ξανοίγω και φθονώ πουλί 'ς το πέταμά του,
Και 'ςτο σπειράκι πώβρηκε, και 'ς τη γλυκειά χαρά του.»
Πολύν καιρό το βάσταξα μέσα 'ςτην έρμη αγκάλη,
«Κ' εφθόνεσα μικρό πουλί, που βρε σπειρί κ' ελάλει.↩
162]
Και το τουφέκι το πιστό σηκώνει μ' αργό χέρι·
«Έρμο! συ μώγεινες βαρύ· ο Αγαρηνός το ξέρει.»
Ερμιάς σπαθί και σκοτεινιάς, σαν τι σ' έχω 'ς το χέρι;↩
163]
Και μέσ' 'ς της λίμνης τα νερά, με πόθο και μ' ασπούδα,
Έπαιξε με τον ήσκιο της βωδάτη πεταλούδα,
Οπού εξενύχτισε όμορφα μέσα 'ς τον άγριο κρίνο·
Και το σκουλήκι βρίσκεται 'ς ώρα γλυκειά και κείνο.
Εκεί χε με τον ήσκιο της η λεφτερίδα . . .
Όλ' αγριόκρινου βωδιαίς, όπ' είχε ξενυχτίση.↩
164] Όνειρο με τα μάγια του παντού ομορφιά και χάρη. ↩
165]
Σε χίλιαις βρύσαις χύνεται, σε χίλιαις γλώσσαις κρένει.
Με χίλιαις βρύσαις χύνεται, με χίλια μάγια δένει.
Κι' όμοια 'ς τ' ανθρώπου την ψυχή η φύση κατεβαίνει.
Η φύσις
Πηγάζει από πολλαίς πηγαίς με όλα της τα μάγια.↩
166]
Σάλπιγγα, ιδού, χωρίς πνοή αυτούς τους ήσκιους κράζει·
Κινούν ανάκατα κι' ακούν μια άλλη που της μοιάζει,
Γέλιο σφοδρό το τούρκικο στράτευμα συνεπαίρνει,

Κ' η αναγελάστρα σάλπιγγα τρόμου λαλιά ξεσέρνει.
Χαμένη σάλπιγγα, τι θες κι' αυτούς τους ήσκιους κράζεις;
Και συ τι θες αντίπερα που σαν ηχώ της μοιάζεις;
Σώπαινε, σάλπιγγα οκνηρή, π' αυτούς τους ήσκιους κράζεις,
Και συ, σκληρή, π' αντίπερα ώσαν ηχώ της μοιάζεις.
Ανακατώνονται, κινούν αργοί, συλλογισμένοι.
Που σάλπιγγα τους έκραξε λεπτή, μικρή, χαμένη·
Και γροικούν πέρ' αντίπερα μίαν άλλη που της μοιάζει.
Σήκω, καλή μου σάλπιγγα! και βρόντα χέρι χέρι·
Εδώ ναι κόραις άβγαλταις, κι' άπραγοι νέοι, και γέροι.»
Χαμένη, αλίμονον! κι' οκνή τη σάλπιγγα γροικάει·
Αλλά πώς φθάνει αντίπερα και την ηχώ ξυπνάει;
Γέλιο 'ς το σκόρπιο στράτευμα τ' εχθρού γεννοβολειέται,
Κ' η αναγελάστρα σάλπιγγα μεσουρανίς πετειέται·
Κ' ελεύθερη, χαρούμενη, γύρου βαρεί, και πέρα
Ηχοποντεί 'ς τον άπειρο και καθαρόν αέρα.
Και τέλος πάντων μακρινή σέρνει λαλιά, σαν άστρο,
Μίσους λαλιά, τρόμου λαλιά, ρητή κατά το κάστρο.
«Σάλπιγγα, βάρει γλήγορα . . . . . .
Τα μάγια κόψ' του τραγουδιού, μη κόψουν την αντρεία,»
Γέλιο 'ς τ' εχθρού το στράτευμα σφοδρό γεννοβολειέται,
Άσβεστο γέλιο 'ς το πλατύ στρατόπεδο γροικειέται,
Και βαρεί γύρου ελεύθερα τον καθαρόν αέρα,
Μ' ήχους πολλούς πολλώ λογιώ κι' ώρα πολλή και πέρα·
Κ' ελεύθερη και πρόσχαρη γύρου βαρείς και πέρα
Τρικύμισε κόσμος ηχοί τον ξάστερον αέρα.
Πλημμύρα ηχοί τρικύμισαν τον ξάστερον αέρα.
Λογιών ηχοί πλημμύρισαν τον ξάστερον αέρα.
Κόσμος ηχοί 'ς τον καθαρό, 'ς τον άπειρον αέρα.
Τέλος βαρεί τρόμου λαλιά και χύνεται, σαν άστρο,
Του μάκρου τέλος n σκληρή σέρνει λαλιά, σαν τάστρο.
Τρόμου ψηλή χύνει λαλιά και βγάν' ήχους πολλή ώρα.
Χύνει κλαγγή χαρούμενη μακριά παντού, σαν άστρο,
Τέλος βαρεί τρόμου λαλιά ρητή κατά το κάστρο.

Κ' ηχοβολάει βροντόφωνα κατά το μαύρο κάστρο.
Κ' ηχολογάει βροντόφωνα κατά το μαύρο κάστρο.↩
167] Πολλά μερόνυχτ' έσκιρταν τα πέλαγα κ' οι βράχοι. ↩
168] Από το βγάλσιμο του ηλιού 'ς τα κύματα αναμμένα. ↩
169] Και τα νησάκια ολόγυρα παρακαλούν και τρέμουν. ↩
170]
«Αραπιάς άτι, Γάλλου νους, σπαθί Τουρκιάς μολίβι,
Πέλαγο μέγα βράζ' ο εχθρός προς το φτωχό καλύβι.»
Απάνου 'ςτο κατάστρωμα οι καλοί ναύταις λένε,
Και τα νησάκια ολόγυρα παρακαλούν, και κλαίνε.
Τουρκιά με δύναμη Αραπιά, με νου Ιταλοί και Γάλλοι,
Σ' έζωσ' ο εχθρός, σαν πέλαγο με δίχως ακρογιάλι.
Τουρκαραπιά με δύναμη.
Άλογ' Αράπη, Γάλλου νους Τούρκου οδηγά μολίβι.↩
171]
Φωνή π' ο δρόμος σου όμορφος και λούλουδα σπαρμένος.
Περβόλι ο δρόμος που πατείς κι' ο ήλιος μαγεμένος.
Ο δρόμος μοσχοβολητός κι' ο ήλιος μαγεμένος.↩
172] Στέκει στο χώμα που πατείς ο ήλιος λατρεμένος. ↩
173] Άκου! στεριαίς, νησιά της γης, ηχούν με τ' όνομά σου.
↩
174] Η αγκάλη μ' ελαχτάριζε κτλ. ↩
175] Της δόξας όνειρο χρυσό, τι θές με και συ τώρα; ↩
176]
Σε πολλούς λύκους με πολύ μίσος, θροφή, και λύσσα,
Παιγνίδι το που στάθη με, τεράστιο το που μένει·
Οι εχθροί χορτάτοι κι άξιοι, πολλοί και θυμωμένοι.↩

177]
Κρυφή χαρά σ' επλάκωσε, μου λέει το πρόσωπό σου,
Για να τη ξεμυστηρευθής 'ς τον αδελφοποιτό σου.
Βίγλα που απόψε εβίγλιζες . . . .
Κάτσε, και τ' αδελφοποιτού γλυκά ξεμυστηρέψου.
Βίγλα, για πες τι στάθηκε απόψε, παλληκάρι.
Για κάθησ', αδελφοποιτέ, και ξεμυστήρεψέ μου.↩
178]
Εσπούδαξα τη γνώμη τους 'ςτην υπνοφαντασιά τους.
Το που χε ο νους τους το σκοπό 'ςτην υπνοφαντασιά τους.↩
179]
Να το χω γκόλφι και σταυρό και μέσα στο μνημούρι,
Για δεν ωμίλησε ποτέ του τάφου η πέτρα. . .↩
180] Μάννα τρανή παλληκαριών, και κάμε τη δική σου.↩
181] Κ' υψώναν 'ςτο χαμόγελο την όψη τη φθαρμένη. ↩
182]
Αχ! γιατί μούρθ' ο νιος μπροστά με τη θεϊκιά θωριά του,
Κ' έπαιξε με το φως του ηλιού, κι' αυτός με τα μαλλιά του.↩
183] Χάσμα σεισμού που βγάν' ανθούς και τρέμουν 'ςτον
αέρα. ↩
184]
Εκρυφανάβρυζε βαθιά κ' εγιόμιζε τη Χτίση.
Τρίσβαθο εκρυφανάβρυζε κ' επότιζε τη Χτίση.
Κρυφαναβρύζει τρίσβαθο, και πλημμυρίζ' η Χτίση.
Κρυφαναβρύζει τρίσβαθο κ' εχόρταινε τη Χτίση.↩
185]
Του πόνου εστρέψαν οι πηγαίς από τα φυλλοκάρδια,
Και μέσα πάλι εγύρισε ψυχή και καλοκάρδια.↩
186] Οπού ν' ερμιά και σκοτεινιά και κατοικιά του Χάρου. ↩
187] Κ' εδέχθη κόκκαλο πολύ. . . ↩
188] Λογισμός κ' έργο κι' όνειρο. ↩

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

The Promise Of Response To Intervention Evaluating Current Science And Practice 1st Edition Todd A Glover Phd

More Related Content

Similar to The Promise Of Response To Intervention Evaluating Current Science And Practice 1st Edition Todd A Glover Phd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Promise Of Response To Intervention Evaluating Current Science And Practice 1st Edition Todd A Glover Phd