Borrowing from the "backward design" construct of Wiggins and McTighe (1998), let us start with the end in mind in launching this issue of Topics in Language Disorders on responsiveness to intervention* (RTI). What we hope will happen as a result of reading this issue is that academicians and practitioners in the field of language disorders will become active players in the RTI movement. It is in effect a call to action, to become familiar with RTI and get involved in the RTI conversations held within the reader's venue, or in some cases to initiate the conversation.

Playing an active role in the development and implementation of RTI is an important goal for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) for many reasons. Among the most important are these: First, RTI is receiving considerable attention in research circles, as well as school practice settings. It is the wave of the future and will likely be implemented in school districts soon, if it is not already. To be real players in the educational arena, SLPs have to be part of the important conversations taking place. It is inconceivable that important deliberations at national, state, and local levels may occur without input from SLPs. Second, RTI has the potential to change the way SLPs are involved with students with learning problems, especially in emergent literacy. It may provide a context within which SLPs can redefine roles and responsibilities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services provided to school-age youngsters. It may be the impetus for school districts and states to acknowledge the wisdom of a workload versus caseload approach to service delivery. Third, an RTI-type approach may have some value in changing the way SLPs think about addressing the needs of students with language impairment (LI) and the way school districts approach eligibility for LI. RTI may be just the nudge the field has needed to abandon the cognitive referencing approach to eligibility that remains in effect in many states and school districts, despite its shortcomings.

We believe that the articles in this issue provide readers with the necessary background knowledge, perspectives, and ideas to participate in significant ways in RTI dialogs at national, state, and local levels. Each contribution has something unique to offer, while providing common threads. Because it is important for each article to stand alone, as well as to contribute to the entire issue, the reader will be reminded of the origins and purposes of RTI as well as the common, albeit different, use of tiers throughout the issue. Furthermore, there is rhyme and reason to the order of the articles, although each in its own right can stand alone nicely.

Graner et al. lead with a description of RTI and its evolution, not an easy task when RTI describes a host of different models with different purposes and structures. Still in the nascent stages, the lack of agreement among those conceptualizing and researching a variety of approaches under the RTI umbrella renders description a challenge, met admirably by these authors. In the second article, Troia explores the possible roles of SLPs within RTI tiers, which are the common structures utilized in most approaches. In providing specific examples, he makes a strong case for how SLPs can become involved in efforts underway in school districts, or a case for involvement in those districts just beginning to discuss implementation.

As the reader will learn in this issue, RTI has grown out of a need to address the growing number of students identified as having learning disabilities. However, as B. Ehren and Nelson suggest in the third article, SLPs would do well to reflect on the possibilities an RTI type of approach might offer to viewing prevention and identification of LI differently. Among other advantages, it may hold promise as an alternative to cognitive referencing now in widespread use in school districts to establish eligibility for LI, despite the clamor in academic circles about the advisability of abandoning it.

A major motivation for this issue was that SLPs are not yet active participants in the RTI dialog in most districts. However, as Staskowski and Rivera point out in the fourth article, by moving toward more curriculum-relevant practices, SLPs lay the groundwork for playing important roles in RTI, even if their school districts are not formally implementing RTI models. The specific examples they provide give SLPs in the schools suggestions for how to proceed. A case in point for SLPs' direct involvement in an RTI model is provided by Moore-Brown, Montgomery, Bielinski, and Shubin in the fifth article. They describe pre-post data for a program instituted in a California school district in which SLPs are centrally involved. Their data provide preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of the model, as a precursor to more rigorous research designs.

As the last contribution in the issue, T. Ehren and Whitmire show SLPs in the schools how to take a leadership role in implementing RTI approaches, by describing legal and fiscal changes providing impetus for development of RTI. Leadership roles in the schools are key to placing the SLP in the driver's seat with this and other initiatives. It is an excellent culminating piece-a real call to action for practicing SLPs.

On a personal note, this editor owes a debt of gratitude to colleagues at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KUCRL) for providing the context that spawned this issue. The KUCRL has been centrally involved in the national RTI movement in a partnership with Vanderbilt University in the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, whose focus has been on RTI. The insights and perspectives of colleagues at KUCRL, notably Don Deshler and Daryl Mellard, have helped immeasureably in understanding RTI and conceptualizing this issue. Most important, their acknowledgment of the important role for SLPs in the continuing RTI dialog will no doubt assist SLPs in becoming important RTI players.

To reaffirm our commitment to keeping the end in mind, I would encourage readers to reflect on the information contained in this issue and decide on a course of action. For example, readers from academe might engage in dialog with colleagues to participate in research that will bring the language perspective into focus. Practitioners, especially SLPs in the schools where the research and development efforts are underway, might contribute to committees developing RTI models. A host of other actions are possible. The bottom line is ACTION IS NEEDED.

Barbara J. Ehren, Issue Editor

REFERENCE