University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools

(USC Thesis Other)

Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE
!

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE
THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTION FOR ADMINISTRATORS OF HEAD START
PRESCHOOLS
By
Dana Jacobson

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Dana Jacobson
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 2
Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family who believed in me and supported me before I
even believed in myself.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 3
Acknowledgements
I owe a great deal of gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, not only
for his continuous support during this research project, but also for his patience and
mentorship throughout my program of study. Dr. Pedro Garcia, thank you for teaching
me the power of persistence and for motivating me, and all of your students to always
follow their dreams. I am also thankful for my committee member Dr. Lena Richter,
thank you for your encouragement, availability, and flexibility during this dissertation
process.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my supportive husband who has
been so patient and understanding these last few years. You gave me the constant
guidance and support at any hour of the night and I love you more than you can imagine.
To my mom and dad, who always encouraged me to do more than I ever thought I could
handle. Thank you for believing in me and constantly motivating me to push myself
further. Finally, I want to thank my best friends, my brother and sister, who are my
inspiration to be a better person every day. The two of you are the kindest, funniest,
smartest people I know, and you have been my constant inspiration during this time. I
also want to thank all the participants in this research project. Without your flexibility
and willingness to take the time from your busy schedules, I would have never completed
this project in a timely manner. Completing a research project this large in scope would
have been impossible without the ongoing support of my incredible committee members,
supportive colleagues, and loving family.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 4
Table of Contents

Dedication........................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 3
List of Tables...................................................................................................................... 7
Abstract............................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.................................................................................. 9
Background of the Problem..................................................................................... 12
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................ 13
Purpose of the Study................................................................................................ 14
Significance of the Study......................................................................................... 15
Delimitations and Limitations................................................................................. 15
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 16
Organization of the Study........................................................................................ 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review...................................................................................... 19
Response to Intervention Overview........................................................................ 19
Response to Intervention: Social Emotional Framework........................................ 23
Educational Policies that Support Social and Emotional Growth........................... 26
RTI Implementation from the Perspective of Administrators................................. 28
Leadership................................................................................................................ 29
Capacity Building.................................................................................................... 30
Resources................................................................................................................. 31
Challenges to RTI Implementation.......................................................................... 33
Sustainable Reform.................................................................................................. 35
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 5
Barriers to Reform Efforts...................................................................................... 41
Conclusion............................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Three: Methodology............................................................................................ 44
Purpose.................................................................................................................... 44
Research Questions.................................................................................................. 44
Research Design...................................................................................................... 45
Participants and Setting........................................................................................... 47
Instrumentation and Protocols................................................................................. 50
Data Collection Process........................................................................................... 51
Data Analysis........................................................................................................... 52
Ethical Considerations............................................................................................. 53
Summary.................................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................... 55
Findings for Research Question 1........................................................................... 59
Findings for Research Question 2........................................................................... 64
Findings for Research Question 3........................................................................... 76
Findings for Research Question 4........................................................................... 85
Summary ................................................................................................................. 87
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, Recommendations and Conclusions………...… 90
Summary of Findings.............................................................................................. 91
Implications............................................................................................................. 92
Limitations............................................................................................................... 94
Recommendations for Future Research................................................................... 95
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 6
Conclusion............................................................................................................... 96
References......................................................................................................................... 98
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Tool............................................................................. 109
Appendix B: Survey Instrument.............................................................................110
Appendix C: Information Fact Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research.............114
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ............................................................................116

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 7
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Degree Held by Administrators ........................................................................ 57
Table 2: Years of Experience of Administrators ............................................................ 57
Table 3: Positions Held by Administrators....................................................................... 58
Table 4: Administrators Major in School ........................................................................ 58
Table 5: How Administrator Role Has Changed to Support RTI..................................... 59
Table 6: Level of Buy-in for RTI .................................................................................... 62
Table 7: Supportive Administrative Leadership............................................................... 66
Table 8: Dissatisfaction with Policies for RTI ................................................................. 67
Table 9: How Concern about time for RTI....................................................................... 73
Table 10: Knowledge of RTI Increased .......................................................................... 77
Table 11: Successful at Building Capacity for RTI.......................................................... 77
Table 12: RTI Data Collection was Challenging ............................................................. 81
Table 13: Improvement in classrooms using RTI............................................................. 85

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 8
Abstract

This mixed-methods study investigated the lived experiences of educational
leaders as they implemented a new Response to Intervention (RTI) program in their
schools. Surveys were distributed and collected from administrators in 13 Head Start
Preschool sites in the County of Orange, and were followed by multi-site administrator
interviews. Research questions were developed to identify program implementation
strategies, challenges to implementation, as well as the role of administrators and how
they evaluated progress.
Findings indicated that leaders who had the greatest success in building capacity for
RTI developed their own knowledge of the program, valued inter-personal relationships
and communication, and were more flexible with their teaching staff. Recurring
challenges to implementation were insufficient training, inadequate time to manage all of
the components of RTI, inability to meet all the demands of increasing mandates, and
chronic teacher turnover. Administrators in this study consistently looked to teachers and
students in the classroom to measure success of the program and reported that following
just one year of implementation there were more appropriate special education referrals
and more students were provided with targeted interventions to support their needs.
The purpose of this study was to develop a strategy guide for educational leaders
who intend to make organizational change in their programs. By examining the
implications of this study, and considering the recommendations proposed for future
research, grassroots leaders can develop an understanding of the challenges and strategies
for creating organizational change.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 9
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The 21st century has marked a new era in our education system; one that moved
from a culture of conformity and compliance to one of responsibility and high stakes
accountability. During this time there has also been a drastic shift in the economic status
of children attending public schools in the United States. For the first time in the history
of this country, a majority of public school students come from low-income families
(Suitts, 2007). According to data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), approximately 51% of students across the nation’s public schools were low-
income in 2013 (Suitts, 2007). The number of low-income public school students in
California is even higher than the national average at 55% (Suitts, 2007). While the
income rate of students’ families in public schools has been decreasing, the top one
percent of American household income has increased over the past three decades.
Between 1979 and 2012, the share of all household income in the top percentile of U.S.
households rose from 10% to 22.5%. At the same time, the percentage of low-income
students in the nation rose from 32% in 1989 to 51% in 2013 (Author, 2014).
In an effort to understand this shift in economic capital, it is critical to examine the
history of the labor market and how it has influenced the educational system. In the early
1900s approximately 40% of U.S. jobs were in agriculture and 11% of the workforce was
illiterate, compared to 2010 where only 2% of U.S. jobs were in agriculture and a
significant decrease in illiteracy (Author, 2014). As a result, there has been a marked
shift from an emphasis on physical labor to cognitive skills (Author, 2014). To keep up
with the labor market and economic changes in the 21
st
century, the United States has
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 10
engaged in ambitious and far-reaching educational reforms. In 2002, United States
President George W. Bush signed into law, The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
which has since been considered one of the most sweeping national education reform
bills of the century (Applequist, 2007). By dramatically increasing the role of the federal
government in public education, the legislation requires states to establish challenging
standards, implement assessments that measure student performance against those
standards, and hold schools accountable for achievement of all students, including those
receiving special education services.
In 2004, continuing to push forth an aggressive education reform agenda, President
George W. Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act
(IDEIA), which significantly altered the field of special education. At its inception, the
purpose of the Act was to identify and support children who were not progressing in the
regular education curriculum at the same rate of their peers. The IDEIA Act introduced
the Response to Intervention (RTI) model, a new component that recommends that at-risk
students be identified early in their academic career, rather than when they demonstrate
significant and prolonged periods of failure (IDEIA, 2004). An RTI model utilizes
evidenced-based screening tools to identify students that fall in the below average range
on standardized screening assessments and then provides them with more intense
evidenced based interventions depending on their level of need (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
Prior to 2004, the traditional method to qualify for special education services was by the
IQ-Discrepancy model, which requires a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability
and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. While
this method of assessment is still widely used, several school districts in the nation have
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 11
adopted the use of the RTI model as well.
In addition to shifting the paradigm on special education qualifications, the
accountability measures in the reauthorization of IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2002) have
implications for economically disadvantaged children. With an emphasis on increased
funding for poor school districts, and demands of higher achievement for low income and
minority students, the measures in NCLB hold schools accountable for their students'
progress through standardized testing (Applequist, 2007). To support this process,
IDEIA permits districts to use as much as 15% of their special education monies to fund
early intervention activities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The research converges on the fact
that children living in poverty are more likely than affluent children to be classified as
disabled (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003: O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006). By providing
additional funding for low-income schools and early intervening services, these measures
have the potential to reduce the likelihood of low-income students misidentified for
special education services. In accordance with mainstream literature, a report from the
National Research Council (Donovan & Cross, 2002) offered a theory of how poverty
heightens exposure to risk factors, impairs children’s development, and results in an
overrepresentation of low socio-economic status (SES) students in special education.
In an effort to counteract the risk factors associated with economic disparity federal
laws have been enacted since the early 1960s with the intent of supporting low-income
children and their families. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced what was
referred to as the War on Poverty (Zarefsky, 1986). The legislation, which was passed by
Congress as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 sought to
address the needs of economically disadvantaged three to five-year olds by providing
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 12
quality education, health and nutrition resources, as well as emotional support through
preschool programs known as Head Start. Since it’s inception in 1965, Head Start has
served over 30 million children and families in poverty. To be eligible to enroll their
children in Head Start, families must have incomes at or below 100% of the federal
poverty level (e.g., $23,550 for a family of four in 2013) or meet other criteria, such as
being foster parents or having children diagnosed with special needs. With a yearly
budget exceeding seven billion dollars, Head Start serves low-income students
throughout the United States of America (Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge
Center [ECLKC], 2014).
Background of the Problem
Children in Head Start enter the program with a number of factors that put them at
risk of school failure, such as extreme poverty, economic and housing instability, limited
family education attainment, as well as high rates of depression and considerable
exposure to crime (O'Brien et. al, 2002). A survey of Head Start families revealed that
two thirds of parents had no more than a high school education and limited employment
opportunities available to them (O'Brien et. al, 2002). The report also revealed that over
time, many of the Head Start households experienced changes in their composition. In
comparing reports of household members from fall of 1997 to spring 1998, 40.8% of all
families indicated that either someone entered or left heir household (O'Brien et. al,
2002). Further, the report illustrated that the reality of violence challenged the
inhabitants of these households. Almost one third of families reported seeing violent
crimes near their homes and nearly one fourth of the families faced challenges associated
with having a family member involved with the criminal justice system. In addition,
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 13
depression was found to impact families living in Head Start households with reports of
close to one third of parents being classified as moderately depressed and 15.6% as
severely depressed (O'Brien et. al, 2002).
The prevalence and importance of the research documenting the detriments of
economic disparity have resulted in recent efforts to address this gap through legislative
measures. Both the NCLB Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 recommend the use of early intervening services for at-risk
children prior to making a referral for special education services (Applequist, 2007;
Donovan & Cross, 2002). These early intervening services are intended to offset some of
the risk factors associated with low-income children. In the same effort, the Head Start
Act states that programs must, “establish effective procedures for providing necessary
early intervening services to children with disabilities prior to an eligibility determination
by the state or local agency responsible for providing services” (ECLKC, 2014). In
addition, section [640(d)(2)] asserts that, “such policies and procedures shall ensure the
provision of early intervening services, such as educational and behavioral services and
supports, to meet the needs of children with disabilities, prior to an eligibility
determination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (ECLKC, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
While the legislation is clear on the requirements of RTI, there are no clear-cut
guidelines for how to roll out implementation attempts. In an effort to maintain best
practices in education, NBA School District has mandated the use of the RTI model
across the 15 Head Start programs in the 2014-15 school year. Program administrators
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 14
have been tasked with the responsibility of building capacity to implement RTI, yet there
is little data available to assist them in this process.
Over the last decade, there have been several studies illuminating the positive
impacts of RTI with data yielding noteworthy results for students across the country.
While the literature is rich with studies that cite the effectiveness of RTI for students,
research that examines this process from the perspective of administrators is limited.
This omission of administrator input on the RTI process is unfortunate because
administrators frequently hold a significant role in complex systems-wide changes such
as RTI.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that facilitated and impeded
the process of RTI implementation. This study also aimed to analyze the role of
administrators as they implemented RTI in the Head Start preschool setting. In addition,
this study intended to examine the challenges that arose during implementation, and the
strategies that administrators employed to support the process.
The following research question guided the study:
1.) What was the role of administrators in the process of RTI implementation at Head
Start Preschools?
2.) What factors supported and impeded the process of RTI implementation

at Head Start Preschools?

3.) What implementation strategies did administrators of Head Start Preschools use to
effectively support the process of RTI?
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 15
4.) How did Head Start Preschool administrators evaluate the effectiveness of RTI
implementation and to what extent was implementation successful?
Significance of the Study

This study is significant as it fills in the literature gap on RTI by exploring the
implementation process from the perspective of the grassroots educational leaders. A
recurring problem for those who implement public policies in education is how to
execute innovations at the organizational level. Observers of the change process (Fullan,
1985; O’Connor & Freeman, 2012) have long contended that leadership is one of the
most important components for any change effort to occur. To date, research on RTI in
preschool has focused predominantly on its effectiveness in the classroom by providing
data on the efficacy of RTI programs in the school setting. Most quantitative studies
depended on the assistance of researchers who often implemented the various
components themselves. This study aimed to investigate the lived experiences of
educational leaders as they attempted to build internal capacity to support RTI in their
schools. By examining both the challenges and best practices of implementation, this
study anticipated to provide a blue print of strategies for educational leaders who intend
to implement RTI in the future.
Delimitations and Limitations
Two assumptions are made in this study: (1) The range of Head Start Preschool
administrators who participated in the study is representative of Head Start Preschool
administrators across the country; (2) The responses of Head Start Preschool
administrators was in fact indicative of their experiences in implementing RTI in their
schools.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 16
I imposed two delimitations on this study. First, I only studied Head Start
Preschools operated by the NBA School District as they were mandating the use of a
Response to Intervention model in the 2014-15 school year. As a result, the study was
delimited to NBA School District operated Head Start Preschools. The second
delimitation was the focus on the perspective of administrators in Head Start. While the
input of additional school staff such as teachers and classroom aids would add value to
the study, I chose to explore implementation from the lens of administrators. Future
studies of RTI would certainly benefit from including these groups as part of the study
design.
The limitations of this study include the number of administrators and the
geographic region studied. Due to limited time and resources this study only focused on
Head Start Preschools in the county of Orange and only evaluated the role of
administrators in the 15 school districts and non-profit organizations that work with the
NBA School District.
Definition of Terms
1.) Response to Intervention: Response to Intervention (RTI) is an alternative
method of identifying students with learning disabilities that relies on three major
elements: universal screening, progress monitoring, and evidenced based
intervention (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
2.) Universal Screening: Universal Screening is a system of assessing all
students in order to identify which students are at-risk for academic difficulties
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 17
3.) At-Risk: Each state or school district decides how at-risk will be defined in their
RTI model design. The term refers to the status of a group of students who score
below a specific set score on the Universal Screening. For this study, at-risk
qualifications are set by an evidenced based screening tool known as the Early
Screening Project (ESP, Feil, Walker & Severson, 1995)
4.) Tiers: Within a RTI framework, the term tiers refers to the various levels of
intervention provided to at-risk students. How many levels, or tiers, of
intervention are provided and the duration of those tiers are determined by each
state or school district. The RTI model utilized by the Orange County Office of
Education Head Start Preschool Division referred to in this study consisted of
three tiers of intervention: Tier 1, 2, and 3 (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
5.) Continuum of evidence-based interventions refers to the need to have an
integrated and linked curriculum should be available such that provides a core
curriculum for all students, a modification of this core for students who are
identified as nonresponsive, and a specialized and intensive curriculum for
students whose performance is deemed nonresponsive to the modified core.
Elements of this continuum must have empirical evidence to support efficacy,
effectiveness, relevance and durability (Sugai, 2009)
6.) Progress Monitoring: Progress monitoring refers to frequent assessment of
students who are identified as at-risk for academic failure to see if there is a
positive response to the interventions (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 18
7.) Implementation fidelity refers to the structures and procedures in place to
ensure and coordinate appropriate adoption and accurate and sustained
implementation of the full continuum of intervention practices (Sugai, 2009).
Organization of the Study

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided an
introduction to the struggles faced by low-income children and their significance in the
current 21
st
century economic and educational context. Chapter Two defines the
Response to Intervention approach in detail, and introduces the policies that led to the
approach along with the recent shift in Special Education qualification. Chapter Two
also reviews the extant literature related to the RTI framework and how it has been used
to close the achievement gap between low-income children and their peers. The literature
review provides an overview of studies that have focused on RTI implementation from
the perspective of administrators leading these efforts in schools and concludes with a
framework for studying sustainable reform efforts in schools and provides examples of
administrations that successfully implemented organizational changes. Chapter Three
details the methodology that was used in developing and implementing the study.
Chapter Four describes the results of the mixed approach analyses and answers the
research questions proposed in Chapter One. Finally, Chapter Five discusses the
implications for research and practice.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study focused on administrators implementing RTI in Head Start preschools.
This section will begin by defining the RTI framework and reviewing current research on
RTI in the United States and abroad. To encompass the context of the present study, this
literature review will also provide the proper background on the impact of Head Start
preschools and the risk factors associated with low-income children. The next section will
introduce RTI implementation efforts that have explored the perspective of administrators
leading these efforts in schools. This section concludes with a framework for
educational reform efforts, and a review of the literature needed to sustain organizational
change efforts in schools.
Response to Intervention Overview
Response to Intervention (RTI) has been described as an approach for establishing
and redesigning teaching and learning environments so that they are effective, efficient,
relevant, and durable for all students, families, and educators (Sugai, 2009). Specifically,
RTI is shaped by six defining characteristics: 1.) Universal screening, 2.) Data Based
Decision Making and Problem Solving 3.) Continuous Progress Monitoring, 4.) Student
Performance, 5.) Continuum of evidence-based interventions, 6.) Implementation fidelity
(Sugai, 2009: Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007.) In this framework students are identified in a
systematic manner to determine who is at-risk of failure in a given area. A continuum of
evidence- based interventions allows for a primary tier where all students are exposed to
an evidenced based curriculum, a secondary tier, which provides supplemental supports
to at-risk students identified by the universal screening process, and a tertiary tier which
provides individualized and intensive supports for students who are not showing
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 20
improvements to the modified curriculum. Progress monitoring is a process whereby
students are assessed on a frequent and regular basis to identify adequate or inadequate
growth trends in an effort to support timely instructional decisions. Student performance
using data is the process that guides student placement on the continuum of interventions.
The implementation fidelity component requires that structures and procedures are in
place to ensure and coordinate appropriate adoption and accurate and sustained
implementation of the full continuum of intervention practices.
Over the last decade these RTI practices have achieved exceptional results for
students in the United States and abroad. Finland, which until recently was a country with
low educational attainment, emerged in 2014 as one of the top educational systems in the
world ranking in 5
th
place (Sahlberg, 2011: Lepi, 2014). In an effort to make
transformational change to their education system, Finland became one of the first
countries to adopt a nationwide RTI policy. Known as the Special Education Strategy
(SPES) Finland launched a tiered approach to education nationwide in 2007. In recent
years researchers have been looking to Finland to understand what has been referred to as
the “Finnish Miracle” (Lepi, 2014). RTI has been cited as a critical factor that has
transformed Finland’s education system from being a low performing country to one of
the leaders in educational reform (Sahlberg, 2011).
While these efforts have not been implemented on a grand scale in the United
States, local RTI implementation efforts have cited noteworthy results. One study found
that in just five weeks of an RTI based program, preschool students showed significant
improvements in early literacy (Hagans-Murillo, 2005). O’Connor and colleagues
(2005) investigated the effects of a tiered reading intervention on a variety of reading
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 21
skills and found that students receiving tiered supports, performed higher on all reading
measures. In the study, instruction for the Tier 2 students was delivered in small groups
for 10–20 minutes three times per week. Tier 3 intervention consisted of five daily, 30-
minute sessions that incorporated group and individualized instruction. Upon comparison
with a historical contrast group (same schools, same teachers), students who had received
both Tiers 2 and 3 performed higher on all reading measures. In a similar reading study,
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson and Hickman (2003) implemented a Tier 2 instruction five
times per week for 35 minutes each at 10- week intervals. The authors reported that of the
45 students (primarily students in English as a second language [ESL] programs)
participating in the study, 10 exited after 10 weeks of intervention, 14 after 20 weeks, and
10 after 30 weeks, with 11 students (24%) never meeting exit criteria. The authors found
that all students showed large gains on reading measures, especially those exposed to 30
weeks of intervention. Another study demonstrated that English language learners in an
urban elementary school at the primary level showed significant reading improvements
following an RTI program. Additionally, a longitudinal analysis that followed
kindergarteners through third grade found that 84% of the at-risk kindergarteners in an
RTI group were scoring in the average range on reading assessments by the time they
were in third grade (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006).
RTI efforts have also been successful in closing the achievement gap in math. In
one RTI math study, Ardoin and his co-authors (2005) implemented a Tier 2 explicit
math instruction and Tier 3 intervention consisting of individualized instruction and peer
tutoring in an effort to improve math fluency and calculation. Of the 16 low-performing
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 22
4th graders in the study, they found that 5 students did not respond adequately to Tier 2
but only 1 student did not improve following Tier 3 individualized instruction.
In addition to closing the achievement gap, RTI has also been shown to reduce the
rate of inappropriate special education referrals. Bollman and colleagues (2007)
examined the effect of a particular screening model to identify students for special
education services and reported that when the RTI model was in place, special education
placement rates dropped from 4.5% to 2.5% over a ten year period. In a related analysis,
Callendar (2007) reported that special education placements decreased by 3% for districts
using some form of an RTI model and the state rate decreased by 1%. O’Connor et al.
(2005) found that during 4 years of RTI implementation, special education placement
rates fell to 8% compared to an historical contrast group for which the rate was 15%.
Finally, VanDerHeyden and colleagues (2007) reported that for the four schools included
in their study, there was a decrease in referrals and an increase in placements. As a result
of the use of an RTI model, more appropriate special education referrals were made and
more students were provided with targeted interventions to support their needs.
The research on RTI conducted to date with few exception, has shown that this
framework can successfully close the achievement gap and increase appropriate special
education referrals. By using scientifically based instruction for all students, keeping
track of student progress using valid and reliable measures, using data to identify students
who do not meet well-developed standards and benchmarks, and then providing those
students with specially designed, evidence-based, and intensive intervention, it is not
surprising that RTI has achieved such noteworthy status.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 23
Response to Intervention: Social and Emotional Framework
Over the last decade the primary focus of RTI has been on academic instruction
and the detriments of academic failure. However, studies have shown that a prolonged
waiting period in students that lack social and emotional skills, is just as hazardous as a
waiting period for children with learning difficulties (Loniganm, 1999; Brody,
Stoneman& McCoy, 1994). The literature suggests that as early as preschool, learning is
moderated by personal and social competencies. Attention, self-regulation, engagement,
and the ability to follow classroom rules, are components that play a key role in a
student’s learning environment (Torgesen, 2001). Several studies converge on the idea
that the ability to sustain attention and follow directions is critical for learning to occur
(Kamps, Greenwood,Arreaga-Mayer, Abbott, & Utley, 2002; Torgesen, 2001). Lonigan
and colleagues (1999) found a correlation between behavioral challenges and reading
disabilities such that students with poor attention skills and increased behavior challenges
were more likely to have a reading disability. Reducing the frequency of challenging
behaviors allows quality instruction to occur more often and with fewer distractions
(Scott & Barrett, 2004; Lassen, Steele, and Sailor, 2006). Scott & Barrett (2004) reported
the effects of implementing a behavior RTI system on high stakes achievement tests. In
their study, implementation of universal behavior supports in middle school led to
significantly improved performance on state assessments in both math and reading. These
results suggest that improving the social behavior of students produces outcomes of more
time spent on academic instruction and consequently more time on learning (Scott &
Barrett, 2004). In a related longitudinal study of 117 Head Start graduates, researchers
found that when Head Start students displayed more off-task behavior during interactions
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 24
with their caregiver, they were more likely to be rated by their teachers as displaying poor
cognitive skills, suggesting that teachers attributed behavior challenges to having lower
levels of cognitive competence (Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1994). The study
concluded that Head Start graduates who develop self-regulatory and attention skills
should be able to make smoother transition to kindergarten.
While the data reveals the importance of developing social and emotional skills in
at-risk preschool students, the current educational context suggests that this is not
occurring. In a recent study of six Head Start programs in the Midwest, researchers
found that only 50% of programs provided instruction designed to support children’s
social-emotional competence. The study also found that five out of six programs had not
established any policies and procedures to support children with persistent challenging
behavior (Quesenberry, Hemmeter, & Ostrosky, 2011). In 2010, survey data representing
46 states found that only 4% of respondents reported that their states had explicit
statewide RTI policies in place (Greenwood et al., 2011). Although the statistics reflect a
limited support structure for these students, the literature suggests that this particular
group of low-income children, are at even greater risk for behavior challenges than their
same age peers.
Research has shown that Head Start preschool children from low socioeconomic
(SES) backgrounds exhibit more aggressive behaviors when compared with their peers in
other community based programs (Kupersmidst, Bryant, & Willoughby, 2000). A
national survey of kindergarten teachers found that on average teachers report 10% of
children begin kindergarten with persistent behavioral problem (Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study Kindergarten [ECLS-K, 2015], but these estimates are significantly
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 25
higher for children living in poverty. According to the survey, up to 23% percent of
young children enrolled in Head Start were reported to exhibit persistent problem
behaviors compared to 10% of their same age peers (ECLS-K, 2015). In a related study
on Head Start preschools, teachers reported that about 10% of preschoolers exhibit at
least one aggressive and unsafe behavior, such as kicking, hitting, and threatening a day
(Goldstein, Arnold, Rosenberg, Stowe, & Ortiz, 2001). Although there have been efforts
to minimize this gap, research has shown that the pervasiveness of behavioral challenges
among preschool-age children has remained unchanged (Egger & Angold, 2006). Critical
features such as caregiver distress and conflicted family relationships have been cited as
contributors to the challenging behaviors of Head Start preschoolers (Brody, Stoneman&
McCoy, 1994). Without having strong social and emotional skills such as impulse
control, self-regulation, and attention, it can be very challenging for this population of
students to learn.
Some noted studies have found that in addition to behavior challenges, children
from low-income families are at greater risk for poor academic performance in school
than their same age peers (Missall, McConnell, & Cadigan, 2006: Bradley and Corwyn,
2002). According to Missal, McConnell, & Cadigan children living in poverty and
children who are English-language learners typically display fewer conventional school
based literacy skills and enter school with lower achievement levels than their peers
(Missall, McConnell, & Cadigan, 2006). This implies that in addition to low levels of
literacy in preschool, Head Start students are also at greater risk for future reading
difficulties. Bradley and Corwyn (2002) found that low-income students are less likely to
visit local libraries or museums and have less access to educational resources like
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 26
computers and books compared to their higher income peers. Longitudinal growth
models revealed that Head Start children began their academic careers well below their
more advantaged peers in literacy and mathematics, (O'Brien et. al, 2002). Entering
school without the necessary skills to succeed directly contributes to the achievement gap
between economically disadvantaged children and their peers and inevitably sets them a
few steps behind.
Payne’s (2003) culture of poverty framework elaborates on the implications that
growing up in poverty can have. In his articles, Payne asserts that economically
disadvantaged students lack the necessary capital to be successful in work and school.
Payne argues that low-income students are lacking the necessary social-emotional
foundations necessary to be successful in school. These subtle implications of growing
up in a lower income neighborhood can impact the manner in which a child’s interacts
with the school system and can contribute to long-term challenges as well.
Blackorby &Wagner (1996) found that children from low-income households
experience poorer post-school outcomes than students from higher-income households
including higher dropout rates and a lack of career options. Further, studies have found
higher rates of diagnosed mental health disorders in low SES youth than the general
population, as well as a higher likelihood of being placed in special education and
increased rates of grade retention (Korenman, Miller, & Sjaastad,1995).
Educational Policies that Support Social and Emotional Growth
In recent years there has been an increased emphasis on the identification and
treatment of children with challenging behaviors. In October of 2013 the United States
Department of Education along with the Office of Special Education Projects renewed its
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 27
government funded grant to the Positive Intervention and Behavior Supports (PBIS,
2015) center. The stated purpose of this organization is to “improve the social behavior
of students in US schools, and provide training and technical assistance to encourage
school wide tiered positive behavioral supports” (PBIS, 2015). In 2009 The RTI Action
Network website introduced what was referred to as the Roadmap to Pre-K RTI
(Coleman, Roth, & West, 2009). The Roadmap presented an introduction to RTI in early
childhood and provided several examples of ongoing RTI programs. Out of the two
programs presented, one model: Recognition & Response presented an RTI instructional
model for language and early literacy and numeracy skills, while the other model,
referred to as the Teaching Pyramid, addressed children’s social–emotional development.
Both are based on the RTI framework of hierarchical levels of risk and tiers of support of
greater intensities at higher levels (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). As a result of increased
government support for these programs, there has been emerging research to evaluate
programs that have utilized a tiered approach to support social and emotional
development.
Studies focused on a systems wide tiered behavioral approach have uncovered
noteworthy results. Nelson et al. (2009) examined a rigorous social-emotional RTI
framework that involved three tiers of support: a universal school-wide program, field-
tested interventions for children at risk, and intensive interventions for students who were
not responsive to the first two tiers. Following three years of a tiered approach to support
social and emotional competence, the study found significant improvements in behaviors
for at-risk students. In a related study, Cheney et. al (2008) examined Tier 2 students who
were at risk for behavioral and academic failure. The results of the study indicated that
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 28
after 16 weeks of intervention, approximately 66% had improved progress reports. Some
of the first RTI preschool programs with the purpose of supporting social emotional
development were conducted by Nylander in 2009. The author found that after using a
positive behavior intervention support strategy (PBIS) in the fall, winter, and spring, the
number of children in Tier 3 instruction declined at each consecutive time period, with
30% in the fall, 18% in the winter, and 10% in the spring. Similarly, for Tier 2, there was
a drop in children at each successive time point: 55%, 47%, and 40% from fall to spring.
While the preceding studies generated powerful results for students, there have
been challenges in RTI implementation. In an effort to understand why some RTI
programs are successful and others fall short of reaching their goals, it is important to
consider this process from the perspective of administrators leading these organizational
change efforts.
RTI Implementation from the Perspective of Administrators
While the literature is rich with studies that cite the effectiveness of RTI for
students, research that examines this practice from the perspective administrators is
limited. This omission of administrator input on the RTI process is unfortunate because
administrators frequently hold a significant role in complex systems-wide change such as
RTI. Despite the limited research, a literature review reveals some critical factors that
facilitate the process of RTI implementation that may shed some light for administrators
leading these efforts in schools. Features such a leaders knowledge and commitment to
RTI, a strong organizational framework, and capacity building have been cited in the
literature as critical components necessary for successful RTI implementation, while
challenges regarding limited resources and poor teacher preparation were cited as
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 29
challenges to RTI (Lemke, Garman, Deno, & Stecker, 2010: O’Connor & Freeman,
2012: Orosco & Klingner, 2010).
Leadership
An analysis of the literature reveals that leadership is among one of the most
important components for any change effort as large as RTI. O’Connor & Freeman
(2012) highlighted several factors associated with leadership that serve to promote
effective RTI systems including a “leader’s knowledge of RTI principles and practices,”
and “leadership structures” (p. 299). Since administrators often have control over
decisions made in the schools, it is crucial for them to have a strong understanding of the
basic principals of RTI and a rationale for this systems change. Lemke, Garman, Deno,
and Stecker (2010) cite “administrator and staff commitment” (p. 371) as one of the
crucial elements that helped Forrest Elementary school move from being a school at risk
to a model for other schools. In their evaluation of RTI in two Montana schools Mahdavi
and Beebe-Frankenberger (2009) also found that administrative support and leadership
were essential in implementing RTI. In their analysis of two different schools in rural
Montana that pioneered RTI, staff indicated the importance of having administrators
included in professional development on RTI to ensure that they understand the process
and can lead it. Their analysis concluded that to enhance implementation efforts, time
should be allotted for administrators to collaborate with other administrators and that they
should have the flexibility to incorporate change to the RTI process at an appropriate rate
(Mahdavi and Beebe-Frankenberger, 2009).
Researchers studying the “Finnish Miracle” (Sahlberg, 2011) cited leadership that
emphasizes the importance of local control and local interpretation as a critical element in
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 30
the new policy adoption process. In their analysis on Finland’s new system Thuneberg et
al.(2014) highlighted the need for administration to “take local conditions into account to
instigate real change”(p. 54) and allow schools to adapt to the change at their own pace.
In order to provide the proper balance between autonomy and support, a leadership
structure where the administration is in communication with the individuals directly
involved in RTI implementation, is critical (Bernhardt & Hebert, 2014: Kratochwill et. al,
2007). In their study of leadership in an RTI framework, Bernhardt & Hebert (2014)
noted the importance of the district establishing a structure to incorporate data from the
implementers in an effort to continually evaluate progress. Kratochwill and his colleagues
(2007) provided an overview of the role of professional development in tiered programs
like RTI. The authors maintained that professional development for RTI must contain a
strong leadership structure that supports ongoing training within participating schools to
facilitate successful implementation of RTI. If administrators have an understanding of
the basic principles of RTI, are committed to the change process, and recognize the
fluidity of the process, they will be more likely to adjust the rate of implementation and
support program staff during the change process.
Capacity Building
Organizational frameworks are also cited as one of the important components that
support capacity building in RTI models. Organizational frameworks are necessary in
that they define the process of goal setting for the organization, analyze the need of the
structure, evaluate progress, and allow for revisions to take place as needed (O’Connor &
Freeman, 2012). Such an organizational framework can be provided by leader of the
organization and can set clear descriptions of the process of RTI implementation. In their
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 31
analysis of Forrest Elementary School’s Implementation of RTI, Lembke et al., (2010)
discuss how an organizational framework was particularly effective in building structured
weekly problem-solving team meetings into the school schedule. They found that the
system was successful in increasing the accuracy of special education referrals and
increasing students’ scores in both formative and summative reading assessments. One
of the core elements of their model was structured around “problem solving teams” who
would “discuss school-wide, grade, class, and individual student data” (Lembke et al.,
2010, p. 363) to guide their decisions. In the study of Finland’s RTI system, researchers
found that organizations that allowed for flexibility, collaboration, and systematic
planning were more likely to adopt their special education strategy (Thuneberg et al.,
2014). Effective schools were shown to retreat from the restricted professionalism of
working in isolation, and move toward extended teacher professionalism of working
collaboratively and engaging in long-term planning (Thuneberg et al., 2014). Practices
such as co-teaching, multi-professionalism, flexible grouping were found in these change
organizations (Thuneberg et al., 2014). Research indicates that the most successful RTI
programs are ones where administrators are knowledgeable and supportive of RTI
implementation, and provide the necessary structure to support these efforts rather than
attempting to control them (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012).
Resources
The extant literature also highlights another component that is important when
establishing a change as elaborate as RTI: resources. Whether it is in the form of
financial, time, staff, and/or training resources, the research converges on the idea that
resources are crucial for an RTI program to be successful (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012:
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 32
Lembke et al., 2010: Bernhardt & Hebert, 2014). Bradley, Danielson, and Doolittle
(2007) cite resources as one of the top three most important factors to the success of an
RTI program. In their analysis of 11 programs that implemented RTI, Hughes and
Dexter (2008) found that the following factors contributed to the sustainability and
scalability of RTI programs: a.) extensive, ongoing professional development, b.)
administrative support at the system and building level, c.) teacher buy-in and willingness
to adjust their traditional instructional roles, d.) involvement of all school personnel, and
e.) adequate meeting time for coordination.
According Bradley et al., (2007), in order to assist educators in carrying out and
sustaining the model, there must be a significant amount of time allotted for training and
technical assistance. Kamps et. al (2007) conducted an experimental study using RTI on
318 first and second grade students. Their study noted that successful implementation
requires ongoing professional development and teacher support. The study found that the
majority of teachers were able to implement at 80% or higher fidelity, following training
and one to two coaching sessions by the researchers or other school staff. In a related
study Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, and Ball (2007) argued that for RTI models to
work, a commitment to increased professional development and training is necessary.
Dalmatian Elementary School in Wyoming provides one of the best examples of the
power of professional development. This school doubled student performance in writing
from 2006 to 2008 (Odden & Piccus, 2009). In two years fifth grade students improved
performance on writing achievement tests from 24 % proficient or advanced to 63%.
When asked what accounted for this jump in scores, the principal reported that the school
committed to re-training their teachers through building and district PD days, and partly
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 33
through teachers completing Professional Development Projects (PDP) focused on
effective writing instruction. They cited “intensive, ongoing professional development
with heavy involvement and engagement of instructional facilitators in all aspects of
professional development” as critical factors to support implementation. Teachers
reported that the renewed training lead to a common language in instruction and
assessment and more collaborative work among teachers. Myers et al. (2011) investigated
the use of RTI with teachers, by examining the effects of an in-service on the importance
of teacher praise. Results reflected a variance in the need for support such that some
teachers required significant training while others did not. In their study of RTI
implementation, Kamps and Greenwood (2002) found that a core group of teachers
working together to accomplish tasks by pooling their resources, was an effective
strategy that supported RTI implementation efforts. Capacity building that places a
strong emphasis on professional development, providing collaborative work time, and
focused learning activities, has been shown to increase adoptability of new programs
such as RTI in schools.
Challenges to RTI Implementation
Research reveals that limited resources pose a major threat to RTI
implementation. In a nationwide survey of RTI implementation, the most significant
challenges to the approach reported by over 600 state Administrators and coordinators
were (a) insufficiently trained personnel, (b) lack of resources needed to develop the RTI
infrastructure, (c) lack of Tier 2 and 3 intervention strategies, (d) lack of knowledge in
how to create an RTI model, and (e) lack of evidence-based Tier 1 instruction
(Greenwood et al., 2011). Lack of funding was cited as the greatest barrier to
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 34
implementing RTI (69%), followed by the lack of professional developments (69%) and
a lack of or unclear policy (44%) (Greenwood et al., 2011).
A study, conducted by Orosco and Klinger using qualitative methods to analyze
one school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners, found that limited
resources lead to inadequate teacher preparation, which resulted in a negative schooling
culture (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). During a 5-month period, they studied a Midwestern,
mountain urban school district composed of 10,780 students. Using multiple sources of
data (e.g., interviews, observations, and instructional documents) the researchers
concluded that there were several challenges that prevented the model from being
implemented effectively including: a misalignment in instruction and assessment,
negative schooling culture, inadequate teacher preparation, and limited resources. A
related study evaluating the effectiveness of behavior supports through a tiered RTI
program, found that building capacity for school personnel to effectively implement Tier
3 was a significant challenge despite a 2 year period of in-service training and follow-up
coaching on RTI (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008). While this deficit based model
negatively impacted the implementation process, the results reveal some crucial
components that may be necessary for the model to be successful.
One such crucial component is Richard Elmore’s principle of reciprocity, which
recommends that, “for every unit of performance I require of you, I owe you a unit of
capacity to produce those results “(Elmore, 2005, p.20). This idea of building up an
infrastructure to support RTI is particularly important upon analysis of what can occur
when this is not in place. Research has shown that “reforms that placed more demands
on the system and its resources tended to face greater difficulty in sustainability”
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 35
(Datnow, 2005, p. 35). Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, and Ball (2007) further
pointed out that for RTI models to work, a commitment to increased professional
development and training is necessary. Kratochwill et al. maintained that professional
development for RTI must contain ongoing support and training within participating
schools in order to facilitate successful implementation of RTI. Therefore, establishing a
strong support system that includes resources, support staff, financial sufficient finances,
as well as time, is crucial when implementing RTI.
In order to analyze administrators leading RTI efforts in schools, it is important to
consider the aforementioned factors that have been linked to successful and sustainable
RTI implementation. This literature review reveals three critical features to successful
RTI implementation: leadership, a strong organizational framework, and capacity
building, while citing inappropriate resource allocation and limited professional
development, as major barriers. Although some studies placed more importance on
certain factors over others, these components were recurring.
Sustainable Reform
To further understand the strengths and weaknesses of an organizational change
as drastic as RTI, it is important to consider what the literature says about sustainable
reform efforts. Sustainability of an organizational reform refers to the ability of a
program to with continue to exist and maintain itself despite barriers. The extant
literature is limited on long-term studies that have examined the sustainability of reform
efforts because most reform efforts do not last very long. One study found that in just
three years since the introduction of a new model, reform efforts ceased in 6 of 13
schools (Datnow, 2005). Studies that have examined successful systems changing
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 36
reforms, have cited some critical features of leadership including the presence of a strong
leader that can inspires school staff, effectively build strong relationships, and develop a
flexible and service oriented central office that supports the capacity of such a change.
Challenges cited for sustainability have centered on limited resources with an emphasis
on insufficient training, high stakes accountability pressures, unstable policies, and
revolving leadership.
The extant literature has illuminated some preconditions for leaders implementing
change efforts in their organizations. Although he examined corporate businesses, Kotter
(1995) identified the first critical role necessary for leaders who wish improve school
systems. In his analysis of over 100 corporate businesses attempting to make
fundamental changes in their organizations, Kotter found that the first important role of a
leader is to develop a sense of urgency for change. In his seminal work on this process,
Kotter recommends that leaders provide relevant data to motivate and inspire people in
the organization; which can then support their efforts to form a powerful guiding
coalition that involves the assembly of a group of people who are powerful enough to
lead the change effort. The next steps to organizational change recommended by Kotter,
is to create a vision, communicate that vision, and empower others to act that vision.
Micheal Fullan, an educational leader recognized as an international authority on
education reform, has applied a similar blueprint for leaders committed to making lasting
change in education. In his work, Fullan (2014) cites five premises of sustainable change
for leaders: moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, knowledge
creation and sharing, and coherence making (Fullan, 2014). The five capacities operate
together in a climate of change and serve to support leaders as they navigate through this
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 37
process. According to Fullan, for leaders to be effective in comprehensive school reform
they must first have the moral purpose and desire to make a positive change in the lives
of students. In addition, they must understand that the change process is tumultuous and
will most likely experience an implementation dip with resistance and challenges from
teachers and staff (Fullan, 2014). Fullan argues that “only principals who are equipped to
handle a complex rapidly changing environment can implement the reforms that lead to
sustained improvement in student achievement (2002).” Another skill that is crucial for
effective leadership is relationship building which requires a strong emotional
intelligence to manage one’s own emotions, exude empathy towards others, and motivate
and energize even the most disconnected teachers. Fullan also argues that creating and
sharing knowledge is central to effective leadership. Mining through a change effort is a
constantly changing endeavor that requires the sharing of new experiences with
colleagues and providing opportunities to learn from each others experiences.
Other educational leaders have cited collective learning as critical feature of
continuous instructional improvement. For Boudett et. al, one of the first steps to
educational reform is to organize the school structure in such a way such that teachers
and their colleagues can engage in continuous collaboration. According to Fullan, if a
school is to undergo major changes, the process must involve the input of all stakeholders
including teachers, parents, students, and administration. The process of “ownership”
which involves stakeholder engagement and involvement in the decision making process,
is crucial to sustain changes. This strategy corresponds to Richard Elmore’s (2005)
theories on improving educational organizations by aligning policy with practice. Elmore
proposes that “the influence of learning on practice is greater the more direct and
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 38
immediate the application to practice” (Elmore, 2005 p. 25). By connecting all
stakeholders to the process and creation of a change effort, schools are more likely to
produce positive influences and maintain major organizational changes. In their
examination of the worlds best performing educational systems The Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) cited collaborative practices around teaching
and learning and developing a mediating layer between the schools and the centre
(OECD, 2013) as features that have contributed the sustainability of reforms around the
world. In addition, engaging in a discussion on the importance and utility value of
developing a new program can incite positive values in stakeholders (Pajares, 2008).
Finally, a great educational reformer has to be able to merge all the fragmented
components of a complex system together and develop a clear coherent vision that can
support and maintain the change effort (Pajares, 2008).
Though guiding implementation with a strong leader is critical, the ability of the
district to build capacity to support these efforts, is essential for long-term success
(Adelman & Taylor, 2003; Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2006). In MacIver and
Farley’s report (2003) on the role of the central office, several studies are cited that
emphasize the importance of a strong central office that is “more flexible and service-
oriented rather than regulatory and monitor oriented” (MacIver & Farley, 2003, p.4).
One way for a district office to be more service oriented is to adjust professional
development. In “Beyond Islands of Excellence” (2003), Togneri and Anderson
introduce the idea of moving “beyond the traditional one time workshop approach and
put in place coherent, district-organized strategies to improve instruction (p. 6). Research
(MacIver & Farley, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003) suggests that to further support
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 39
teachers, districts could provide “time for teachers to observe master teachers, talk with
colleagues about instructional issues, and reflect on learning to better put into practice”
(MacIver & Farley, 2003, p. 28). Togneri and Anderson also suggest the development of
“teacher leaders” who provide “instructional support to teachers by modeling lessons,
providing one-on-one coaching, and assisting struggling teachers” (Togneri & Anderson,
2003 p. 8). Through the provision of sufficient planning time, and collective learning,
districts send a message to teachers that they support the reform, and this lends authority
to the effort.
Another critical component of capacity building involves the recognition of the
specific needs of the organization. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that for reform
efforts to be successful, it is critical to determine current values in the organization, and
diagnose the gap (Odden & Archibald, 2009, p. 49). A common gap in many
organizations is motivation. Research has shown that motivation decreases when busy
work and unnecessary rules are common (Clark & Estes, 2008). In order to increase
motivation, Clark and Estes argue that increased autonomy and unnecessary work should
be reduced. Additionally, Fullan argues that rewarding and punishing individuals in a
system may seem like a logical tool to motivate teachers, but it is flawed. For rewards to
promote improvements, they must be “embedded in a culture of learning where teachers
are motivated to learn from feedback” (Fullan, 2011, p. 10). If teacher performance is
linked to rewards and punishments, teachers will be less likely to be open to feedback and
may be hesitant to hearing any suggestions for improvement. Other commonly cited
motivational gaps are in the areas of self-efficacy and task value (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teachers who believe that they are not capable of effectively delivering instruction, do
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 40
not see the value of adopting a new program. In an effort to address this deficit, one
suggestion is for leaders to use data to demonstrate the need for reform efforts and how
the new program can close the gaps. By highlighting specific areas that the new program
could improve, assessing where and why the resistance exists, and listening to the needs
of the implementers, organizations are more likely to achieve and sustain change. Daggett
and Jones (2010) would add that deciding with data rather than opinions and enlisting
passionate people who see the possibilities would help move the change process forward..
Feedback, as well as actual success on challenging tasks positively influences learners’
perceptions of competence (Pajares, 2008). Providing that ongoing observation and
feedback is crucial for the motivation gaps to subside and the climate to improve.
An important component to be aware of when establishing change in an
organization is that the change process requires consistency. Many organizations often
have several al a carte services that they offer but they are rarely organized under one
comprehensive unit. “Standards over here, assessments over there, and teacher appraisal
and incentives is still in another box.” (Fullan, 2011, p. 16). For major reform to take
place and be sustained, the varying systems must work together under one umbrella.
According to Floden and colleagues (1988) implementation of a policy is easier if the
policy is consistent with other reform efforts at the school, district, and state levels.
Having uniformity in programs mitigates tensions that might require teachers to choose
among reforms (Floden, 1988). The ability to offer an overarching system allows for
teamwork and accountability to assist in the development of a transformed system.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 41
Barriers to Reform Efforts
When accountability demands are too high and not aligned with the resources and
support, it is unlikely for change to occur. It has been found that “a high stakes
accountability system may inhibit the sustainability of reform efforts in schools,
particularly in schools that do not exhibit high capacity” (Datnow, 2005, p. 35)
According to Hopkins (2013) it is a myth to think that the introduction of an external
accountability policy will have a positive and sustained impact on student achievement
scores. Hopkins argues that the use of external accountability measures in
underperforming schools, will result in a “short, sharp, shock either shaking them out of
complacency, or directing their attention to a limited number of measurable goals”
(Hopkins, 2013, p. 311). In contrast, the PISA report that examined factors that account
for school success found that countries that began to use accountability measures saw
increased achievement in their students, but that this decreased student diversity. Their
findings suggest that the most effective learning conditions exist when accountability
measures utilize formative rather than summative assessment to evaluate student progress
(OECD, 2013).
According to Daggett and Jones (2010, p.1) “change must be revolutionary in
spirit and evolutionary in time frame.” Current research suggests that it takes several
years for new programs to be implemented with success, yet most organizational change
efforts expect the change to occur in a short time frame (Hord,& Huling-Austin, 2014),
To remediate this challenge, it is suggested that within the first few years of
implementation leaders follow Fullan’s (2002) rule to “be light on judgment and heavy
on capacity building.” Elmore also proposes a common sense strategy that can help
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 42
leaders create stronger policies that have a higher likelihood for adoption. Elmore states
that “the influence of learning on practice is greater the more direct and immediate the
application to practice” (Elmore, 2005 p. 25). By connecting the implementers of the
policy to the creation of that policy two major benefits come about. First, educators are
more likely to implement a policy that they were involved in creating, and secondly the
policy is more likely to produce positive changes because it directly relates to the deficits
that educators experience daily. By shifting the approach from top down to bottom up,
educators can and should have more of a say on what policies and procedures should be
developed to support continual improvements.
Many systems reforms efforts have cited insufficient resources as a barrier that
inhibits the change process. Resources can be conceptualized in many ways, including
staff, materials, and time. In their analysis of New American Schools (NAS), Berends,
Bodilly, and Kirby (2002) found that lack of funding was the single most important
reason why schools decided to drop a new design. Conversely, in an analysis of the
Memphis Restructuring Initiative, researchers found that regardless of the design, schools
that made the most progress had sufficient resources and high professional development
(Ross et. Al., 2001). Finally, a long term study on sustainability of reform efforts in
Florida schools conducted a study that took place over the course of a decade
(Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). The researchers concluded with a few primary
assertions to explain the reason reforms were not sustainable: leadership change, teacher
turnover, reduced support for the program, and state and district policy change. The
researchers also found that once these factors were in place, the lack of resources posed
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 43
as a significant stressor to an already diminishing systems reform (Echevarria, Short, &
Powers, 2006).
Conclusion
This chapter began by a detailed description of RTI and how it has been
implemented successfully in the United States and abroad. This chapter also introduced a
recent trend in school reforms to adopt behavior support models in an RTI framework
and explored the benefits of using these reforms specifically with a low-income preschool
population. Next, this chapter explored the risk factors associated with being a low-
income student and the interplay between academics and behaviors for this population.
The following section examined RTI programs that have been successful by stressing the
impact of leadership and capacity building in organizational change efforts. In addition,
barriers to RTI implementation were explored, including the challenges of limited
resources and poor professional development. This chapter concluded with an analysis of
sustainability of reforms by highlighting strong and supportive leadership as contributing
factors, and instability of policies, a high demand on summative assessments, and limited
resources as barriers to the sustainability of reform efforts.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 44
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY!

A review of the literature demonstrated that successful RTI programs could
moderate risk factors associated with low-income students. There is a limited amount of
research on factors that support the implementation and sustainability of these programs
in low-income Head Start Preschools. The literature review suggests that the role of
administrators leading these efforts in schools has a significant impact on whether or not
RTI programs are successful (Lemke, Garman, Deno, and Stecker, 2010; O’Connor &
Freeman, 2012 & Sahlberg, 2011).
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of administrators leading RTI
efforts in Head Start Preschools across Orange County, explore their implementation
strategies, and investigate barriers to the adoption of RTI. To this end, the following
research questions were included:
Research Questions
1.) What was the role of administrators in the process of RTI implementation at Head
Start Preschools?
2.) What factors supported and impeded the process of RTI implementation

at Head Start Preschools?

3.) What implementation strategies did administrators of Head Start Preschools use to
effectively support the process of RTI?
4.) How did Head Start Preschool administrators evaluate the effectiveness of RTI
implementation and to what extent was implementation successful?

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 45
Research Design
According to Creswell (2008) there are six critical steps necessary to conduct a
research study. The first few steps are to identify the problem, review the literature, and
specify a purpose for the research. These steps were completed in the preceding chapters.
The next steps involve the collection of data, an analysis and interpretation of the data,
and a final reporting section that evaluates the research. This study has utilized the
Crewell model as a framework to guide the design, and the grounded theory approach to
analyze and interpret the data (Glaser, & Strauss, 2009). The grounded theory approach
entails the construction of theory through the analysis of data, and allows the researcher
to review incoming information in such a way that the concepts emerge from the data
itself. The ultimate goal of grounded theory is to develop a core understanding that is
grounded in data and accounts for the central theme in the data. This process consists of
three steps: first the researcher locates conceptual categories in the data, next the
researcher finds relationships within those categories, and in the final stage, the
researcher conceptualizes the data and accounts for those relationships with an abstract
theory. The objective of a grounded theory approach is to discover the participants’ main
concern and analyze how they continually try to resolve it. This method was chosen
because it allowed the researcher to conceptualize what is going on during the
implementation phase of RTI and to understand what supported and hindered the process.
The methodology employed in this study involved a mixed method approach of
using a likert scale survey to collect quantitative data and semi-structured interviews
(Patton, 2005), to collect qualitative data. The initial data collection phase involved
gathering data from the leadership teams in 15 non-profit organizations and school
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 46
districts implementing RTI across Orange County. The next stage of the study proceeded
to gather qualitative data in the format of semi-structured interviews with the
administrators of some of the programs. The quantitative data provided a description of
demographics in the study, the level of implementation for each leadership team, and the
stage of concern regarding implementation. This information was evaluated through
quantitative and qualitative measures. The qualitative analysis further explored
administrators’ level of concern and examined how success rates were evaluated. The
purpose of the qualitative analysis was to explore the variation in implementation
strategies in an effort to reach conclusions about effective implementation methods.
There are compelling reasons to choose a mixed methods approach within the
educational research arena. Qualitative research could be beneficial in the field of
education because this method aims to understand how participants derive meaning from
their surroundings, and how their meaning influences their behavior. This could be
particularly useful for a study aimed at evaluating a systems wide change effort such as
RTI. The qualitative method allows for an investigation into the environment, culture,
and relationships in a school setting as administrators support school staff to implement
RTI. The process of triangulation, to check if multiple methods of analysis to support a
single conclusion (Maxwell, 2013), is a useful tool when studying an organizational
change as large as RTI. Utilizing multiple measures to analyze RTI implementation,
quantitative research methods can access information such as the level of implementation
and the rate of concerns reported by school staff. Using this mixed methods approach to
study RTI implementation efforts provides a deeper understanding of this process
through first hand experience, truthful reporting, and quotations of actual conversations.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 47
Participants and Setting
This study focused on Head Start Preschools in Orange County and the leadership
teams in these organizations. The individuals who participated in this study were
selected using a purposeful sampling, which required the researcher to determine the
specific selection criteria (Patton, 2005). The pre-established criteria set for participating
in the initial likert scale survey was limited to Head Start leadership staff including
directors, assistant directors, and coordinators who were involved in implementing a
Response to Intervention framework in Orange County in the 2014-15 school year. The
pre-established criteria for the semi-structured interview, included additional criteria. The
minimum criteria set to participate in interviews was a Bachelor's degree or equivalent in
Early Childhood Education, Child Development, Psychology, Public Administration, or
one of the Social or Behavioral Sciences, a minimum of two years of management
experience, and participation in the 2014-15 RTI implementation efforts at NBA school
district.
In the 2014-15 school year NBA school district adopted a mandate that required
every non-profit agency and/or school district operating under NBA, to implement an
RTI framework to support social and emotional development. According to the
legislation, schools operating under the NBA district would be required to, “establish
effective procedures for providing necessary early intervening services to children with
disabilities prior to an eligibility determination by the State or local agency (ECLKC,
2014).” In addition, the legislation requires that, “such policies and procedures shall
ensure the provision of early intervening services, such as educational and behavioral
services and supports, to meet the needs of children with disabilities, prior to an
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 48
eligibility determination under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (ECLKC,
2014). NBA school district produced a Grantee Instructional Memo (GIM) on July 1,
2014, which provided directives and information to Delegate Agencies and Child Care
Partners (DA/CCPs) on the minimum expectations of RTI services delivered to children
enrolled in their Head Start preschools.
The policies and procedures, otherwise known as the Grantee Instructional Memo
(GIM), were based on defining characteristics of RTI including 1.) Universal screening,
2.) Data Based Decision Making and Problem Solving 3.) Continuous Progress
Monitoring, 4.) Student Performance, 5.) Continuum of evidence-based interventions, and
6.) Implementation fidelity (Sugai, 2009: Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007.) The mandate required
the implementation of the Second Step: Social-Emotional Skills for Early Learning
(Committee for Children, 2002), an evidenced based early learning program that teaches
self-regulation and executive-function skills to help children learn to manage their
feelings, make friends, and solve problems. In addition, the GIM established that the RTI
program must include Tier I whole class intervention, Tier II small group interventions,
and if necessary, Tier III individualized interventions that would be guided by a seven-
month timeline. The Early Screening Project: ESP Stage One (Feil, Severson, & Walker,
1995) was the tool chosen to identify children at-risk who may benefit from participating
in the Tier II social skills intervention group, and the Devereux Early Childhood
Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012) was
determined to measure participating children’s progress. The DECA-P2 is a strength-
based, standardized assessment instrument designed to measure within-child protective
factors and screen for behavior concerns in children ages, three to five. The framework
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 49
followed the evidenced based guidelines and was to be implemented in a phased in
approach.
The first phase established by the GIM began in the 2014-2015 school year
required the implementation of the social-emotional intervention in a minimum of three
center-based Head Start classrooms. The requirements mandated the use of a multi-
disciplinary team of agency staff, such as administrators, assistant administrators, and
coordinators to support the implementation process. These leadership teams were tasked
with training agency staff on the RTI model, including: 1) RTI overview, 2) social-
emotional curriculum, and 3) assessment tools and progress monitoring tools. As such,
this leadership team composed of directors, assistant directors, and coordinators was
expected to have a strong understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the RTI
implementation efforts at their agencies and they were selected as the first population to
be sampled for this study.
Sampling this population included multiple layers. The first layer was to review
likert scale survey responses from the leadership teams in each of the 15 agencies. Each
agency typically employs one director as well and several leadership positions including
one assistant director and several coordinators. The number of leadership staff at the 15
agencies ranges from three to seven. Each member of the leadership team was provided a
written likerd scale survey in an effort to establish agencies with varying levels of RTI
implementation. The next layer of sampling for selection of candidates to be interviewed
included purposeful sampling of administrators who had a bachelors degree or higher,
and a minimum of two years of management experience. Analyzing this population of
seasoned leaders allowed for the evaluation of successful practices during RTI
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 50
implementation.
Instrumentation and Protocols
For the purpose of this study, quantitative data was collected through a
questionnaire distributed at a district wide meeting for all the participating agencies
which totaled 64 members. (See Appendix A for recruitment tool). The survey
instrument was designed to collect information on the level of implementation and the
stages of concern of each member of the leadership team. The Stages of Concern theory
(George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer 2006) provided a theoretical framework for developing
and analyzing the survey questions. Stages of Concern is a component of the Concerns
Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and consists of seven stages which are used to denote
developmental movement through a novel implementation process (George et al., 2006).
This framework proposes that as leadership staff experience a district-wide organizational
change, they will also experience different levels of concern and comfort with the new
program (George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer 2006). In the Stages of Concern framework
concern refers to the feelings, thoughts, and reactions individuals have when they are
faced with implementing a new program (George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer, 2006). The
theory posits that as an individual gains experience, skills, and knowledge of the new
program, their level of concern is reduced and their comfort level increases. The survey
questions were generated by utilizing this framework to develop questions that answer
the research questions proposed in this study. Question types included 11 likert scale
structured responses, as a well as demographic questions and an open-ended prompt that
informed the process of developing questions for the following interviews (see Appendix
B for the survey instrument and Appendix C for the information fact sheet).
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 51
Qualitative data enhanced the study through a follow-up of semi-structured
interviews, (Patton, 2005), consisting of several key questions that helped to define areas
to be explored. The semi-structured interview was designed to allow the interviewer or
interviewee to deviate in order to pursue an idea or response in detail, while also
providing enough structure to gather the necessary data to answer the research questions
(see Appendix D for interview protocol questions). This approach was effective for
studying administrators’ perspectives of RTI implementation because it allowed for the
discovery and elaboration of information that is important to them. Additionally, since
there is limited research that has investigated this phenomenon, this approach was useful
because it shed light on information that has not previously been thought of as pertinent.
Data Collection Process
The first step of the data collection process involved the distribution of a likert scale
survey to all the leadership teams of each agency. During a district-wide mandatory
meeting, hard copies of the surveys were distributed and agency staff were asked to
complete the surveys at the meeting. Agency staff spent approximately 15 minutes
completing the survey and were thanked for their participation. All the surveys were
collected in a large envelope. Agency staff who were unable to make it to the meeting
were provided with a hand delivered envelope containing the survey and asked to
complete and return to the district office. On the bottom of each survey was a section for
individuals to check off indicating if they would consent to their agency participating in a
45-minute interview.
For the open-ended interviews, an initial email was made to the administrators who
were selected to participate based on the established criteria. Only administrators who
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 52
checked off the section consenting to participate in a follow-up interview were contacted
to participate in the interview. Once a chosen time and date was selected, a follow-up
email was sent to the administrators providing them with a reminder of the scheduled
interview date, background information on the study, as well as a list of questions that
were to be covered during the interview. The interviews took place at the participating
administrator’s office or home and were conducted on an individual basis between the
researcher and administrator. With the permission of each administrator, an electronic
voice recorder was used to ensure a quality recording of the interview, while also
providing the researcher the freedom to focus on the interview process rather than
collecting data (Creswell, 2008; Patton, 2002). Recordings were then transcribed to a
Microsoft Word document for analysis and coding (See Appendix D for interview
protocols).
Data Analysis
The grounded theory approach was used to analyze the data in this study (Glaser,
& Strauss, 2009). The first level of analysis with the data involved the use of open coding
to generate abstract conceptual categories (Punch, 2009 p. 186). The research questions
and the literature review were used as a structure to guide the analysis of the data in the
first few iterations of coding. As the survey and interview data was collected, the
researcher tagged the data into codes and grouped the codes into concepts. The second
operation in grounded theory analysis is referred to as axial coding and involves the
process of connecting the categories that emerged from the open coding process (Punch,
2009 p. 187). While the first stage involved the breaking apart of the codes, the next
stage was connecting main concepts together. The literature review revealed major
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 53
themes related to leadership, resource allocation, and capacity building which provided
the initial structure to analyze the data. During this stage, broad groups of similar
concepts were clustered together to generate a theory. The final stage of the grounded
theory analysis is referred to as selective coding and involves the deliberate selection of
one central aspect of the data as the core category (Punch, 2009 p. 188). At this point the
developing analysis was integrated into a central focus, which revealed categories where
further data analysis was required. The data was re-reviewed several times to allow new
codes to emerge and new concepts to be extracted from the data. The coding process
enhanced the consistency and reliability of the study by triangulating information across
multiple sources of data (Patton, 2002). Information on the factors that supported and
impeded the RTI implementation process at each agency was collected through likert
scaled and open-ended survey responses. This information was triangulated by semi-
structured interviews of administrators that analyzed their own role in the process and
evaluated the factors that have effectively supported the implementation process as well
as barriers to the process. The ultimate goal of this stage is to formulate hypotheses
based on conceptual ideas grounded in the data.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher implemented several measures to ensure that the study was done
ethically. Prior to collecting data, the researcher successfully completed the training
offered by University of Southern California’s (USC’s) Institutional Review Board
(IRB). During each interview, the confidentiality clause was read and the interviewees
were provided the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time. To ensure
anonymity pseudo names for participants, schools, and districts, were used. No
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 54
information has been published without the consent of the individuals from whom it was
elicited. All transcribed interviews were stored in a secure location, access to which was
limited to the researcher, their chairperson, and USC’s IRB. Transcriptions and audio
recordings will be destroyed upon completion of the dissertation process.
Summary
This study was designed with a mixed methods approach, incorporating
quantitative data from a likert scale and open-ended question survey as well as qualitative
data from semi-structured interviews. Findings from these sources, along with those from
a review of literature, were triangulated in order to provide a more robust and complex
understanding of RTI implementation efforts across Head Start preschools in the county
of Orange. These findings have been presented in chapter four, and recommendations for
further research will follow in Chapter Five.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 55
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
This chapter provides an analysis of data from the research study, which aimed to
explore the factors that facilitate and impede RTI implementation efforts at Head Start
preschools. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of administrators leading
RTI efforts in Head Start Preschools across Orange County, California, explore their
implementation strategies, and investigate barriers to the adoption of RTI. One of the
aims of this study was to create a compilation of strategies to support educational leaders
who wish to implement RTI in the future.
Quantitative data was collected from surveys distributed at a participating district
wide meeting with administrators, and qualitative data was collected from open-ended
questions on the survey and interviews. Surveys were distributed to 64 administrators of
15 Head Start programs across the county of Orange, and 38 were completed, providing a
59% response rate and representation from 13 programs across the county. Of these
respondents, five administrators were selected based on pre-established criteria to be
interviewed. These administrators have been referred to as Administrator A-E, and no
identifiable information has been reported in these findings.
Qualitative data provided demographic information, levels of implementation and
support for RTI, as well as barriers to the program. The qualitative data further explored
administrator roles and practices to support RTI. The qualitative data also explored
trends in evaluation methods and strategies that administrators used to support
implementation efforts at Head Start Preschools. A semi-structured interview was used to
obtain qualitative data, which consisted of 13 questions on the interview protocol.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 56
A mixed-method approach of using surveys and interviews was conducted to
collect data. The process of triangulation, to check if multiple methods of analysis to
support a single conclusion (Maxwell, 2013), was used to analyze the data. During the
process of data collection, all of the information collected was maintained and protected
for confidentiality and anonymity.
The following research questions help to guide the dissertation. Findings have been
reported in order by the following research questions:
Research Questions:
1.) What was the role of administrators in the process of RTI implementation at Head
Start Preschools?
2.) What factors supported and impeded the process of RTI implementation

at Head Start Preschools?

3.) What implementation strategies did administrators of Head Start Preschools use to
effectively support the process of RTI?
4.) How did Head Start Preschool administrators evaluate the effectiveness of RTI
implementation and to what extent was implementation successful?
Participant Demographics

The majority of administrators who responded to the survey had less than two
years of management experience and held a Masters degree or above. Of the 38
responders, 36% had a Bachelors degree, 62% had a Masters degree and 2% had a
Doctorate degree (see Table 1). In addition, 70% of administrators had 1-2 years of
management experience while 15% had less than one year of management experience,
and 15% had more than two years of management experience (see Table 2). There was
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 57
some diversity in management positions such that 11% of survey responders were
Directors, 5% were Assistant Directors, 49% were Coordinators, and 16% were
Supervisors (See Table 3). There was a lot of variation in educational backgrounds with
a four way split between Early Childhood Education (29%), Child Development (21%),
Social/Behavioral Sciences (21%), and Other (24%) with minimal background in
Psychology (5%) and Public Administration (2%) (See Table 4).
Table 1
Degree Held By Administrators

Degree

f %
Associates 0
0

Bachelors 14
36

Masters 24
62

Doctorate 1 2

n= 38 responders

Table 2
Years of Experience of Administrators

Experience f
%
Less than 1 year 5 15

1-2 years 24
70

2 or more years 5
15

Table 3
Positions Held by Administrators

Position f
%
Director 4
11

Assistant Director 2
5
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 58

Coordinator 18
49

Supervisor 6
16

Other 7 19

Table 4
Administrators Major
!
!
Major
f

%
!
Early Childhood Education 11
29
!

!
Child Development 8
21
!

!
Psychology 2
5
!

!
Public Administration 1
2
!

!
Social/Behavioral Sciences 9
24
!

!
Other 7 21 !
!

Interview participants were purposefully selected in order to provide a
comprehensive response to the research questions. While only 15% of survey responders
had over two years of management experience, this sub-group was selected to provide
information rich responses to management practices. In addition, the selection process
identified participants that had administrative positions at Head Start Preschools who
participated in RTI implementation efforts through the NBA school district in the 2014-
15 school year. The five administrators interviewed met the minimum Bachelors degree
requirements and indicated having educational backgrounds in Early Childhood
Education, Psychology, and/or one of the Behavioral or Social Sciences.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 59
Findings for Research Question 1: What was the role of administrators in the process of
RTI implementation at Head Start Preschools?
Analysis of survey data (see Table 5) indicated that most administrators felt that
their role had changed to support RTI, with only 8% disagreeing with the statement.
Most of the survey respondents strongly agreed (8%), agreed (39%) or were neutral
(45%) when asked if their role changed to support RTI implementation. This quantitative
data suggests that administrators recognized the need to adapt their role to support the
RTI implementation process.
Table 5
Role Has Changed to Support RTI

Survey Response f
%
Strongly Agree 3
8

Agree 15
39

Neutral 17
45

Disagree 3
8

Strongly Disagree 0 0

When the qualitative data was analyzed two themes were developed that answered
the first research question. The intent of the question was to understand the daily
responsibilities of educational leaders as they began to introduce RTI to their staff and to
understand how their role changed to support implementation efforts. The first theme
that arose was the responsibility to develop implementation procedures and coordinate
professional development opportunities to train staff on all the necessary components of
RTI. Administrator B explained that her role was to “create our standard operating
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 60
procedures and implementation practices for RTI as well as being involved with training
and technical support of our staff.” Administrator A explained a similar role by stating,
“My role has been to ensure that we are having meetings, set up trainings for teachers,
setting reminders for them, and following up with specialists.” Administrator E also
expressed similar responsibilities by describing her role as follows,” coordinating
meetings, facilitating meetings, coordinating trainings, and keeping record of the action
plan.”
Leadership as a Group Effort
These coordinating efforts were echoed by all of the administrators who also
indicated that they work in a team to support RTI efforts. Administrator C explained,
I have been part of a core team, which oversees the staff that are implementing RTI
in the classroom. I have trained staff on RTI monitoring, making sure that they have
been implementing it. I coordinate trainings, and provide trainings.
She summarized by stating the that her role is, “Pretty much making sure that they
[teaching staff] are staying true to the model and answering any questions that staff might
have.” Administrator D also referenced this team approach by describing her role as a
core member of the RTI team. She explained that, “this year we expanded the team
members to include additional support from education.” Administer A explained that she
was the first one to take the lead on RTI, but “after time we were able to bring in more
people.” This “team” approach was also noted in the responses on the open-ended
questions of the survey items. One responder explained that RTI “is a collaborative
model that crosses all service areas” and recognized that the “RTI leads have been very
supportive.”
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 61
Motivational Leadership
The second theme that arose from the qualitative data was that administrators also
depicted their role as motivational leaders who had the responsibility to build support for
RTI. Their job wasn’t just to coordinate and train staff on the components of RTI, it was
also to inspire and encourage staff. One recurring theme in the interviews and surveys
was the initial disdain from teachers when they were first introduced to RTI.
Administrator A indicated that during the introduction to RTI, approximately 90% of
teachers showed resistance to the program. The reaction that she got was, “Are you
kidding me? Another thing that we have to do.” Administrator C described the response
as “ahh I have to do more work” and “ whoa, too much paperwork.” Administrator B
witnessed a similar response explaining that, “Initially there was some teacher resistance
because of anything new. New and change is difficult to implement.” Administrator A
described the reaction to a new model as a fear response. She said, “you have a fear
response when you get more work, you are like Ahhhh, we all get that way.”
Several administrators described their role as leaders who had to work to build
buy-in for RTI. The survey data (see Table 6) reveals that by the end of the school year,
most administrators felt there was buy-in for RTI. When asked if they think their school
had staff consensus for RTI, 15% strongly agreed, 49% agreed, and 28% were neutral.
Only 8% disagreed with the statement, suggesting that administrators felt that they were
successful in building buy-in for the program. In addition, many of the survey responses
either agreed (52%) or strongly agreed (28%) that their school’s administrative leadership
for RTI was supportive. Only 10% stayed neutral or disagreed with that statement. While
the initial response to RTI was resistance, the quantitative data suggests that
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 62
administrators were able to turn that around and build staff support for the program by
the end of the school year.
Table 6
Buy-in for RTI

Survey Response f
%
Strongly Agree 6 15

Agree 19 49

Neutral 11 28

Disagree 3 8

Strongly Disagree 0 0

When asked about their role, some administrators described their responsibilities
as motivators. One administrator explained that, “Some staff felt that it is helpful to
implement RTI while other teachers just do it as another task that they need to do
throughout their day.” In response to those teachers who didn’t buy into the program, this
administrator explained that, “During our trainings I definitely was trying to motivate
them. I explained that RTI is a very valuable program, especially with the vulnerable
Head Start population.” When asked about teacher support for the program another
administrator explained that , “Buy-in is hugely important, not only for the success of the
program but also for the empowerment of the teachers which then empower the
children.” She explained that it was her duty to empower teaching staff and expressed
the following,” Head Start staff needs to feel empowered. Management and everybody in
the program from the top office down to the child and family need to feel empowered to
create a successful program.” Administrator E also described the importance of having
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 63
staff that feels valued and listened to. She explained that “the relationships I have with
the teachers is very important to me. This year working so closely with them has helped
me build better communication and relationships with them.”
While all the administrators described their role as building buy-in for RTI, most
of them used different strategies. Some administrators focused on validating the
individual feelings of teaching staff, and others focused on how the model can help
struggling learners in their high-risk communities. Administrator C spent time explaining
how the model would benefit children. She explained that, “First of all building up the
program, that RTI is good. But not only that, they have a lot of paperwork, so trying to
motivate them to do the paperwork because that is on top of all the other responsibilities
that they have.” This approach of recognizing the feelings of the teachers was in contrast
with the approach of Administrator B who emphasized the importance of the children.
To motivate her staff she focused on the needs of the students in the high-risk
communities they serve and emphasized how the program could support them. This
administrator explained that the Head Start children they serve have “already experienced
trauma in their life and have more needs than most children but may not have the
resources. Teaching them those skills is incredibly important for their foundation to
learn.” Administrator D explained that her strategy was to hold people accountable by
recognizing their efforts. She noted, “you need strictness to make sure everyone is held
accountable but it is how you approach it because you don’t want to make people feel
that they are not doing a good job.” Administrator C echoed a similar response and
explained her strategy as follows: “What I definitely did is I just validated for them that I
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 64
understand we are adding more paperwork to their load and emphasized that it is a good
program and it is going to help with those children who need it.”
Summary
In summary, it was found that most administrators reported that their role had
changed in some way to support RTI in the 2014-15 school year. The majority of
administrators referred to a leadership team approach to support the program and cited
motivational strategies such as building accountability, validating feelings, and
empowering teaching staff to build buy-in for the program. These strategies align closely
with Micheal Fullan’s (2014) theory of educational reform. Of his five premises for
sustainable change for leaders, relationship building is the component that most closely
aligns with these findings. According to Fullan, if a school is to undergo major changes,
the process must involve the input of all stakeholders such that teachers, parents,
students, and administration feels empowered. This aligns closely with the findings in
this section that support the importance of validating feelings and empowering staff to
build buy-in for a new program.
Findings for Research Question 2: What factors supported and impeded the process of
RTI implementation at Head Start Preschools?
Factors that Supported RTI
The second research questions sought to address the concerns of administrators
during the RTI implementation process, as well as the components that supported
implementation. While there were many challenges to RTI implementation, both
qualitative and quantitative data revealed affirmative responses to the program.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 65
Following the first year of implementation, administrators had the following positive
feedback:
“RTI has provided immense support for improving teacher classroom
management skills and child outcomes.”
“For teachers who implement, we have seen great gains in school readiness.
“RTI is a great program!”
“Once RTI is implemented and staff see results, they come aboard!”
In addition to the positive feedback on open-ended survey items, one recurring
theme that emerged from the interviews, was that implementation of Tier I was
straightforward and fairly simply to implement. When asked which part of RTI was the
easiest to implement, Administrator B stated, “Tier I was very straightforward and fit
nicely into the structure of the day. It gave teachers lesson plans that were evidenced
based with very interactive tools that they could use.” Administrator A had a similar
response, “I think the actual curriculum instruction is pretty straightforward.”
Administrator C echoed the same response, “Tier I is the easiest. It was easy for all I
believe [staff and administrators], for the teachers it was in addition to their large group
time, they put it in their lesson plan and it wasn’t too much additional work.
Administrators D and E also noted that the way the content was presented made the
program easy to implement. Administrator D explained, “I think the curriculum itself,
the content, the way its packaged and presented is easy. It is a user-friendly curriculum.”
Administrator E added that, “the fact that everything is scripted makes it easier.”
Although there was some positive feedback regarding the execution of RTI, there were
several challenges during the first year of implementation.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 66
Resistance to New Mandates
The first potential barrier to RTI implementation consists of an initial
resistance to implementing a new requirement. Qualitative data suggests that there was a
significant amount of teacher, as well as some administrator resistance, when RTI was
first introduced. For the teachers, the initial opposition came from the perception that
they are being asked to do “one more thing” in addition to many other responsibilities
and duties they are currently expected to do. One administrator recalled a teacher
saying, “Are you kidding me, another thing that we have to do?” Administrator B echoed
the same reactions from teachers and expressed that, “New and change is always difficult
to implement.” One administrator described the initial reaction from teachers as
“overwhelmed,” another as “nervous,” and another described it as “reluctant.”
This level of resistance was also described in the response of administration.
While the majority of survey responders agreed (52%) or strongly agreed (28%) that their
school’s administrative leadership for RTI was supportive, the interviews revealed that
this was not always the case (see Table 7).
Table 7
Supportive Administrative Leadership

Survey Response f
%
Strongly Agree 10
28

Agree 19
52

Neutral 4
10

Disagree 4
10

Strongly Disagree 0 0

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 67
In response to the level of buy-in at her school, Administrator D explained the
following:
On the administration level, the dilemma has been whose responsibility is it to
take the lead on this process. Administrative people have been very reluctant to
take the lead and even when they do, the reluctance shows. People will say, I
don’t want to do it, or I was made to do it.
Administrator C also noticed a lack of administrative buy-in. When the program
was first introduced, she indicated that she was told, “you take lead of this and let us
know what we have to do.” When asked what would help RTI be more successful,
Administrator C suggested that “If we had a more committed core team of administrators
(we are doing other responsibilities) who met more regularly and then maybe provide a
few more trainings or follow up meetings with the teachers, that would help.”
Both qualitative and quantitative data suggest that while there was initial
resistance to the RTI program, over time, this resistance decreased significantly. By the
end of the program year only 5% of administrators agreed that they are not satisfied with
their school’s policies and procedures to support RTI. An overwhelming majority (51%)
disagreed, or strongly disagreed (18%) with that statement that they are dissatisfied with
their policies and procedures on RTI, suggesting that by the end of the program year most
administrators were satisfied with their RTI implementation policies (see Table 8).
Table 8
Dissatisfaction with Policies for RTI

Survey Response f

%
Strongly Agree 0
0

Agree 2
5

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 68
Neutral 10
26

Disagree 20
51

Strongly Disagree 7 18

Administrator A explained that, “towards the middle of the year, the resistance
went down to probably like 40%. And the last few meetings that we had we didn’t really
have any negative comments.” Administrator D noticed a similar trend. She indicated
that, “towards the end of the year you really see that the teachers see a benefit in RTI.
They are using the strategies with the children and the whole class and they want to
continue.” Administrator E noticed a similar trend and noted,
In the beginning I think the teaching staff were a bit nervous because the
information is new. But I think as they gained practice, the more they were
exposed to the material, they got more comfortable and now they actually enjoy
it, especially when they see how the children respond to the program.
Challenges with Tier II implementation
There were two themes that arose in relation to challenges with Tier II
implementation. The first concern was in relation to care and supervision of the students
during the Tier II small group instruction time. Administrators were concerned that when
teachers were implementing the small group instruction component, their ability to
supervise the rest of the students in the class would be impaired. Administrator A
explained it as follows, “classrooms will have between 16 and 20 children. The
challenge is how are teachers going to work with the small group when the other children
are elsewhere in the room.” Administrator B echoed the same concerns stating, “to
provide small group time and maintain appropriate supervision was a challenge.”
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 69
Administrator E noted similar “teacher-child ratio” challenges and described it as
follows: “the fact that the teachers need to implement Tier II during small group means
separating those children from the rest of the group which lead to teacher-child ratio
issues and that is a big concern.” This notion was also triangulated by the open-ended
survey responses. One responder indicated the following, “My only problem with Tier II
is pulling children out and jeopardizing care and supervision.”
The second theme was a concern regarding paperwork requirements. During the
Tier II portion of the program, teachers were required to use standardized tools to identify
students who need additional small group support. They were then required to use a
different standardized tool to monitor their progress. Administrator C explained,
When we got to Tier II it became a little more challenging for both administration
and teachers because of the additional paperwork. For myself to understand the
DECA’s (progress monitoring tool) and ESP (screening tool) and then to be able to
teach them how to score it, all of that, it adds another layer that makes it a little bit
more challenging.
The data suggests a significant amount of resistance by teachers and administrators to the
mandate of RTI at the beginning of the year. Although the mandate was initially
challenged, qualitative data suggests that once staff saw the benefits of the program, they
were more likely to support it. The challenges that continued to strain the program were
concerns about care and supervision during small group implementation, and additional
paperwork requirements.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 70
Insufficient Capacity
A recurring theme that arose from the open-ended survey questions and
interviews was this idea that Head Start teachers are not provided sufficient capacity to
complete all of their requirements. Contributing to the notion that teachers are being
given one more thing to do is the fact that NBA school district also began implementing
several other initiatives simultaneously with RTI. One of the major initiatives introduced
in the 2014-15 school year, was the establishment of a standardized curriculum. Prior to
this year, each program had the freedom to use any curriculum of their choice. For the
first time in the 2014-15 school year, all programs were required to adapt the curriculum
chosen by the district. While the district provided trainings to administrators on the
various components of the new curriculum, it was the responsibility of the administrative
teams to schedule times to train their teachers on the new curriculum. When she was
describing the challenges with RTI implementation Administrator B explained, “This
year has been especially challenging to conduct more trainings because of a switch of
curriculum which resulted in significant amount of time otherwise allocated to other
trainings to otherwise be spent supporting a new curriculum.”
The administrators that were interviewed recognized that both teachers and
administrators were overwhelmed by all of the new initiatives they were being asked to
implement. One administrator described this problem as follows, “Concerns regarding
paperwork and time are not isolated to RTI. RTI in itself is not a lot of work, however,
when looking at the big picture, this is additional to many other paperwork requirements
for teaching staff and site supervisors.” The response of the staff to these new initiatives
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 71
was two-fold- first it made it logistically challenging to implement all the requirements,
and secondly it brought about a negative culture of frustration and anger.
This culture of frustration with the district was evident in some of the open-ended
survey responses. In response to a question asking for any additional comments, one
administrator wrote, “There are too many responsibilities given to our Head Start
teachers. We have had much difficulty getting buy-in to implement. Additional
paperwork for screening and progress monitoring is unreasonable and we don’t have
personnel to assist with scoring.” This response was triangulated in findings from the
interview data as well. One administrator described the perception of the district
mandates as follows, “There are a lot of conflicting requirements and there are a lot of
requirements given to us without our input on whether or not it would benefit the success
of the program. There have been requirements given to us that we do not participate in
building and this makes it very difficult to get everyone on board.” Administrator D
echoed similar concerns regarding the lack of support from the district. She described the
response of the staff as being willing to take on more responsibility as long as other
responsibilities are removed. She explained, “People will say I would love to take it on,
get rid of this and I will do that.”
This need for the district to provide the capacity to support the new initiatives was
evident in both the survey and interview data. One administrator wrote, “Challenges
continue in fighting for time for effective training, review, and support. Teachers note
overwhelming support for Tier I, however, lack of time to effectively implement related
to competing demands of continually changing requirements.” Administrator B also
posed a solution for this problem of building capacity in the following statement:
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 72
As requirements increase the ability to provide support also needs to match the
requirements. So if it is increased requirements that are time consuming, then
more time should be provided. If a new programs requires new information then
there should also be increased training support allotted.
This proposal is in line with Richard Elmore’s principle of reciprocity, which
recommends that, “for every unit of performance I require of you, I owe you a unit of
capacity to produce those results “(Elmore, 2005, p.20). Qualitative and quantitative data
suggests that this need to build capacity is missing from NBA school district.
Insufficient Resources
In analyzing the qualitative and quantitative data, there was one reoccurring
theme cited by administrators as a potential barrier to implementing RTI: insufficient
resources (see Table 9). While insufficient materials and inadequate staff were cited by
some administrators, the main concern regarding barriers to RTI implementation was the
lack of time. Administrators expressed that they need more time for professional
development to support RTI as well as time for staff to complete the paperwork
requirements involved in the program. The majority of administrators either agreed
(42%) or strongly agreed (27%) with the statement that they are concerned about not
having enough time to support RTI. Only 10% of responders disagreed with the
statement, suggesting that most administrators believed lack of time was a barrier to RTI
implementation. While there was a mixed response about the time needed to complete
the paperwork requirements of RTI, the greatest concern involved the time needed to
train staff. When asked if they were concerned about the time spent completing the
paperwork involved in RTI, some administrators agreed (30%) or strongly agreed (26%)
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 73
that they were concerned, some were neutral (27%) and some disagreed (15%) or
strongly disagreed (2%) that time to complete paperwork was a challenge.

Table 9
Concern about time for RTI

Survey Response f
%
Strongly Agree 9
26

Agree 12
30

Neutral 11
27

Disagree 6
15

Strongly Disagree 1 39

Qualitative data suggests that the greatest challenge regarding time was
scheduling the time to train teaching staff on RTI. Administrator B described the
problem as follows: “It is extremely challenging to schedule trainings with teachers. Our
time outside of the classroom with teachers is extremely limited. We have one meeting
for 1.5 hours a month with all the teachers which includes different program teachers
who have different program requirements so it is a challenge to address everybody’s
needs with that type of setting.” She went on to explain, “We also have 4 professional
development days a year (3 hour block of time) and we have to cover a variety of topics
in this short amount of time.” Similar concerns were noted by Administrator D who
explained,
The challenge that I find, I am being honest, I think because the teachers are so
overworked and overstaffed I found that a number of them like to request days off
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 74
during scheduled trainings because they feel like they won’t miss anything. I
don’t think we haven’t gotten to the point where we made trainings mandatory.
We have gotten to that pattern with certain teachers. They have said, Oh I
thought we were going to do paperwork if that’s not the case then I’m taking a
day off.
Administrator E explained that the beginning of the year posed as the greatest challenge
for coordinating trainings. She explained, “In the beginning of the school year we have
so many things to do, so it was hard to coordinate trainings.” These challenges in
scheduling times to coordinate trainings was also evident in the open ended response
section of the surveys. One administrator wrote, “Challenges continue in fighting for time
for effective training, review, and support.”
In addition to finding time for professional development, the other component that
was identified was the lack of time to complete the paperwork associated with RTI.
Administrator C described this challenge as follows:
The teaching staff that I worked with caught on pretty quickly on how to
implement and score DECA’s and do the ESP. The challenge for them I felt was
finding the time to do that on top on all the tools they have to do in the classroom,
doing lesson plans, the DRDP measures. They have to write notes on each child,
they have to do their lesson plans, they have home visits, and they have Fridays
for paperwork and trainings so it kind of limits how much we can do.
Administrator A noted similar concerns and remarked that “the additional paperwork and
remembering to stick to timelines” were the two most challenging components of RTI.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 75
An additional concern that was noted in the area of time was the need for teachers
to prepare prior to the implementation of the lessons. Administrator D noticed that in
addition to attending the training session for RTI, it was also really important for teachers
to take some time and prepare the lesson for the day. She explained, “For teachers I think
what has been difficult for them has been investing the time in preparing for the lesson,
because if you don’t know the material you are not going to be able to implement it. You
can’t just fly by the seed of your pants. There is planning and preparation that comes
beforehand.”
An additional concern regarding insufficient resources was a lack of staff to support
RTI. Open-ended responses in the survey point to several challenges regarding
insufficient staffing. Some administrators noted that there weren’t enough staff to
participate with scoring the progress monitoring tools necessary for RTI, while others
noted a challenge in not having enough staff in the classroom during Tier II instruction.
One major concern noted was the staff turnover rate. Administrator D explained that her
program went through several changes over the past few years from “loosing staff and
downsizing, then doubling in size and hiring new staff.” She explained that coping with
the challenges of training new staff members in the middle of a school year further
strained the implementation efforts of RTI.
Summary
In summary, one of the major barriers to RTI implementation was a lack of time to
train staff as well as a lack of time for teachers to prepare their lesson and complete their
paperwork responsibilities. Barriers that were cited were the lack of hours allotted during
the school year for staff development and preparation periods. This finding is supported
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 76
in the literature that analyzed 11 programs implementing RTI. The researcher (Dexter,
2008) cited extensive ongoing professional development and adequate meeting time for
coordination, as critical factors contributing to the sustainability and scalability of RTI
programs. The findings suggest that administrators recognized the need for professional
development and planning time, but had challenges carving out time to support those
features. Teacher turnover was also cited as an additional challenge that stressed
implementation efforts. While there were variations in the preparation and staff
development time allotted in the different schools, the common thread was that the time
allotted was insufficient to cover all of the requirements.
Findings for Research Question 3: What implementation strategies did administrators
of Head Start Preschools use to effectively support the process of RTI?
When the qualitative data were analyzed, several themes were developed that
answered the third research question. The intent of the question was to identify strategies
that were successfully implemented to support RTI. The importance of building
knowledge, setting up an infrastructure, and using data driven systems were cited as
significant contributors to successful adoption of RTI. Relationship building and having
open lines of communication were also cited as tools that helped administrators build
support and capacity for RTI.
Knowledge
Both the quantitative and qualitative data (see Table 10) cited administrator’s
knowledge of RTI practices as a critical component for successful adoption of the
program. Most administrators surveyed (92%) either agreed or strongly agreed that their
knowledge of RTI increased over the 2014-15 school year. Only 8% of survey
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 77
respondents did not feel that their knowledge of RTI principles increased. Of this group
33% cited administrative leadership for RTI at their agency as supportive and only 33%
agreed that their agency had staff consensus or “buy-in” for RTI, compared to the
average of 64%. Moreover, none of the survey respondents in this group agreed that over
the past school year their agency was able to build capacity to support RTI
implementation efforts. This analysis reveals that administrators who were less
knowledgeable of RTI practices were not able to successfully build capacity to support
RTI in their schools.
Table 10
Knowledge of RTI increased

Survey Response f
%
Strongly Agree 20
51

Agree 16
41

Neutral 3
8

Disagree 0
0

Strongly Disagree 0 0

Conversely 20% of administrators strongly agreed and 49% agreed that their
agency was able to build capacity to support RTI implementation over the past school
year (see Table 11). From this group, 100% of respondents either agreed or strongly
agreed that their knowledge of RTI has increased and 91% agreed or strongly agreed that
they saw improvements in classes that used the RTI model, suggesting that administrators
who increased their knowledge of RTI were more likely to see improvements in
implementation practices.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 78
Table 11
Successful at Building Capacity for RTI

Survey Response f
%
Strongly Agree 8
20

Agree 19
49

Neutral 10
26

Disagree 2
5

Strongly Disagree 0 0

The qualitative data analysis revealed similar themes in knowledge building.
Administrator A explained that one of the first things the leadership team in her school
did was build their own knowledge of RTI. She explained the following: “We had a
meeting where we literally went through the whole box together because we decided that
if we were going to tell teachers to do this we needed to know what it was ourselves.”
She went on to say, “I would hate to be talking to a teacher and they would be like, how
do we do this, and I would be like, lets look at this together. I want to at least know all the
strategies that are in there.” Administrator E described a similar experience with her
leadership team, “Everything was new to us. Having the recurrent meetings and
reviewing the materials consistently helped us learn more about the curriculum and how
it can benefit the children, especially the children selected for Tier II.” Administrator C
explained that this knowledge building process was a challenge for her. She described
the process as follows, “It took me a little bit of time to understand the concepts of RTI
and then be able to train the staff. I don’t know if that was an individual thing, but it was
more time than I would have wanted.” The qualitative data suggests that while the
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 79
process of building knowledge was challenging and time consuming, administrators
engaged in this practice with their leadership teams.
Relationship Building
Relationship building was also cited by administrators as a successful
implementation strategy. Whether it was in the form of building rapport, having open
lines of communication, or being flexible with mandates, all administrators believed that
having strong relationships with their teaching staff was critical for successful
implementation.
When asked about the strategies that were effectively used to support RTI, several
administrators expressed the importance of empowering teachers. Administrator B
expressed the following, “Building buy-in is hugely important, not only for the success of
the program but also for the empowerment of the teachers which then empower the
children. Having the trust of the teachers is important in requesting them to make a
change or implementing a change.” For Administrator C the relationship building
process involved her ability to “validate teacher’s feelings and frustrations.”
Administrator A explained the importance of empowering teachers by explaining why the
requirements are in place. She stated, “When I first trained them on measuring tools I
was really helping them understand why we were implementing and why we were using
it and how it would benefit them. I didn’t just say you have to do this and that, I said this
is why we are using it. I think that is why I got their buy-in. I didn’t get too much push
back.” Administrator B had the same experience. Her strategy was to, “Talk about Head
Start as an organization that works with at risk children who have already experienced
trauma in their life. These children have more need and may not have the resources.”
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 80
Administrator B took the time to explain to her teachers that, “Teaching them those skills
is incredibly important for their foundation to learn.”
Communication and flexibility were also cited as strategies that supported RTI
implementation. Administrator E stressed the importance of communication in building
buy-in for RTI. In her response she explained that, “the relationships that I have with the
teachers are very important. This year working so closely with them helps me build better
communication. I truly value the feedback that I get from the teachers and keeping that
window of communication open has helped a lot.” Administrator E also noted the
importance of being flexible. She explained, “This is still fairly new, the more flexible
we are in meetings, supporting and guiding teachers through the process, the more
successful we can be.” This idea of providing continued support for the teachers was
echoed by Administrator B who expressed the following, “Creating buy-in by giving
training, continued support, and retraining is critical.”
Some administrators used creative strategies to support buy-in for the program.
Administrator D utilized her sense of humor to build relationships with teaching staff.
She explained the following, “I try to be a little funny and share personal stories too and
all about my kids.” Administrator B used the most resistant teachers to build support for
the program. She explained, “My strategy was to try to incorporate some of our most
resistant teachers. I used a strong teacher who is one of the most vocally opposed to most
changes. I used her as kind of a pilot to get buy in, and it is really a testament to the
quality of the program because she almost immediately became a very strong advocate.”

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 81
Using Data
While several administrators believed that the data collection component of RTI
was challenging, many of them used data driven results to build support for the program.
Quantitative data (see Table 12) was split regarding perceptions of the data collection
procedures. Most responders either strongly agreed (8%) or agreed (33%) that the data
collection procedures of RTI were challenging to implement while 18% disagreed and
41% were neutral. Qualitative data suggests that although some administrators believed
that the data collection procedures were challenging to implement, many of them utilized
the results to build support for RTI. One survey responder expressed that “data driven
results support implementation.”
Table 12
RTI Data Collection was Challenging

Survey Response
f %
Strongly Agree 3
8

Agree 13
33

Neutral 16
41

Disagree 7
18

Strongly Disagree 0 0

Following one year of RTI implementation, administrators began to notice
changes in both the number of mental health and special education referrals as well as the
quality of the referrals. Administrator D described this as follows: “We looked at the
data when we reviewed the files from the progress monitoring tools and we found that
classrooms that are using it correctly are doing “valid referrals” while other classrooms
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 82
that aren’t doing it right are not identifying correctly.” Administrator A explained that
one strategy she used to build buy-in for RTI is showing staff the referral data. She
explained, “I showed them that we had 45 referrals when we closed out the year last year.
This year we have 7 more sites (15 additional classrooms) and we only have 45 referrals.
I really think it is because of this extra component. With RTI, teachers are setting a
different climate in the classroom that is translating into children regulating themselves a
little better.” Another administrator said the following statement, “The data is there, the
requirement is there, they are giving us the money you just have to do it.” Administrators
believed that presenting data driven results was a strategic tool to build support for the
RTI program.
Setting up the Infrastructure
Another strategy that was commonly used by administrators to support RTI was a
reliance on their existing systems. Many administrators attempted to weave
implementation efforts into their current schedules and align the program with their
existing policies and procedures. This strategy was best described by Administrator A as
follows: “I have added RTI into systems that currently exist, like into pre-established
teacher trainings. During our case conferences, I meet three times a year with the
teachers, and meet with teams to review cases and at those meetings we review
candidates for RTI and consider RTI progress. We have also included RTI updates into
our monthly staff MDT (multidisciplinary team) meetings where we review new referrals
and open cases.” According to the quantitative data (see Table 11), most administrators
believed that they were able to successfully build capacity in their organizations to
support RTI. The majority of responders either strongly agreed (20%) or agreed (49%)
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 83
that their agency was able to build capacity for RTI in the 2014-15 school year. Only 5%
disagreed with that statement and 26% were neutral. This data suggests that most
administrators believe that their school was able to build some form of structure to
support RTI.
While some administrators were able to build capacity by incorporating RTI into
their current systems, other administrators utilized different strategies. All the Head Start
administrators interviewed perceived RTI implementation to affect their role through an
increased need to support and guide the teachers through the RTI process. Because RTI is
a new process and because so many questions about the process are unanswered, the
administrators felt that the teachers require a great deal of support. This support has taken
the form of obtaining more information, building on existing knowledge and systems, and
providing necessary time and resources to implement RTI.
Through the process, administrators learned that they need to provide hands-on
guidance and support through classroom visitations. Administrator D explained that
while she recognized her need to be more involved in the classrooms, managing all of her
duties was a challenge. She explained that although she would plan to be available to
visit a classroom, she had so many responsibilities to juggle that often times she would
miss her scheduled visit. To combat these challenges Administrator D explained the
following strategies: “I would schedule things early in the morning so other things don’t
come up. I have also used going out in teams, not going alone, so that someone else can
drag you out of the office, so you have that commitment with another person.” When
asked what additional resources would help support RTI Administrator C replied that,
“additional staff could help with monitoring more of the fidelity and being on site and
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 84
providing that support in the moment.” She went on to explain that providing additional
support has been a challenge, “because of other responsibilities that the administration
has.” Administrator E expressed the same concerns regarding her ability to provide
additional support at the classroom level. When she was reflecting on the first year of
implementation she explained that, “The rti core team didn’t take the time to follow-up
and visit classrooms. We didn’t do that this year, we just didn’t have the time to do that.”
When asked what she would do different in the future, Administrator E replied with the
following: “We definitely need to provide more support to our teaching staff. We need to
be more involved in the process on site.”
Summary
Although there were many factors that challenged RTI implementation efforts,
administrators were able to successfully utilize leadership strategies to build support for
the program. Relying on their existing relationships and expanding their own knowledge
of RTI to support teaching staff, were recurring themes in the qualitative analysis.
Research indicates that the most successful RTI programs are ones where administrators
are knowledgeable and supportive of RTI implementation (O’Connor & Freeman, 2012).
Similar to what the research purports, both the qualitative and quantitative data suggest
that administrators in this study recognized the importance of expanding their own
knowledge base of RTI. Communication and flexibility was also cited as a critical
feature of RTI implementation efforts. This is in line with the research which suggests
that a leadership structure where the administration is in communication with the
individuals directly involved in RTI implementation, is critical (Bernhardt & Hebert,
2014: Kratochwill et. al, 2007). While administrators in this study expressed challenges
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 85
in finding time in their own schedules to provide hands-on support at the classroom level,
all of them recognized the importance of this communication loop. Finally, the findings
also suggest that some administrators employed the power of data to motivate their staff
and attempted to structure RTI into their existing systems for a smoother transition.
Findings for Research Question 4: How did Head Start Preschool administrators
evaluate the effectiveness of RTI implementation and to what extent was implementation
successful?
Implementation Success
Both qualitative and quantitative data revealed that administrators believed that
RTI implementation efforts were successful. Following the first year of implementation,
a staggering majority of administrators indicated that they have seen improvements in
classrooms that are using RTI; 42% of administrators strongly agreed and 50% agreed
that they have seen improvements in classrooms using RTI (see Table 13). Only 8% of
administrators responded with a neutral response and none of the administrators
disagreed with the statement, suggesting that RTI implementation efforts were considered
successful for most programs.
Table 13
Improvement in classrooms using RTI

Survey Response
f %
Strongly Agree 16
42

Agree 19
50

Neutral 4
8

Disagree 0
0

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 86
Strongly Disagree 0 0

An analysis of the qualitative data portrayed a similar trend in evaluating
implementation efforts amongst all of the administrators interviewed. When asked how
they evaluate RTI implementation efforts, each administrator explained that they examine
teachers and students in their assessment of success. Administrator A described it as a
“multilayered process” which has to do with, “the fidelity of how the staff is sticking to
implementation, if they are using the concepts and if they actually do it with enthusiasm.”
Administrator D explained that, “you can tell when teachers are prepared and using it, the
posters are up when they refer to things in the curriculum the kids know what that is. You
can see it in the classroom set-up, during outside time etc.” Administrator C explained
her evaluation process as follows: “I look at how the classroom is, I look at classroom
management, when I walk into a classroom if I hear the teachers using the terms from the
curriculum to set the expectations for the children, I know it is being implemented well.”
Administrator B also cited improved classroom management as an indicator of success.
She described her evaluation as follows, “One of the things I have seen is improved
classroom management, qualitatively going into classroom and seeing a drastic change in
the teachers classroom management. Whereas before the use of RTI the teacher had little
control over the classroom, now teachers have clear structure and guidance for kids.”
All of the administrators also examined the response of the students in the
classroom as a tool to analyze implementation level. Administrator E explained that “the
best way to evaluate if RTI is successful is to see if the children are responding. Is it
effective, is it working? The only way to determine that is by seeing improvement in the
child, especially the children that were selected to participate in Tier II. Some
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 87
administrators believed that the program was successful if they saw a classroom where,
“Children express their wants and needs,” and others “looked at the children to see if they
are picking up the concepts.” Administrator C explained, “I have been able to notice that
in sites where teachers that have the buy-in I can see the results. It is a more organized
calm environment versus other sites where children are fighting or the classroom is really
loud, and the children are not focusing.”
Some administrators evaluated implementation efforts by analyzing referral data.
Administrator D explained the following process to evaluate success: “We look at the
data when we review the files from the progress monitoring tools, we try to do it as a
group. Classrooms that are using it correctly are doing valid referrals, other classrooms
that aren’t doing it right are not identifying students correctly.” Administrator A said, “ I
look at the data for that classroom in terms of referrals. I compared referrals to this year,
last year, the year before, how many referrals were here.” Administrator C noted “less
referrals” in classrooms using RTI and shared that at one of her sites, “I have only had
one referral.”
Summary
In summary, 92% of administrators believed that RTI implementation efforts
were successful in the 2014-15 school year. All of the administrators looked to students
and teachers in an effort to evaluate implementation efforts. Some of the indicators
mentioned were improved classroom management, displayed use of curriculum materials,
an increased number of valid and reliable referrals, and a reduction in the number of
inappropriate referrals.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 88
Summary
This chapter reported quantitative findings from 38 administrators and a qualitative
analysis of five administrators in Head Start Preschools in the county of Orange. The
results of this study revealed that most administrators strongly supported the RTI
program and reported improvements in classroom management as well as a reduction in
challenging behaviors, after just one year of implementation. Findings of this study align
closely with Micheal Fullan’s (2014) theory on education reform. As indicated in the
results, administrators reported that leadership teams that stress the importance of
knowledge building and inter-personal relationships were critical features that supported
implementation efforts. These findings are in line with Fullan’s (2014) work that stresses
the value of leadership and relationship building in education reform.
The greatest barriers to RTI were insufficient training, inadequate time to manage
all of the components, and recurring teacher turnover. Administrators reported challenges
in fighting for time for effective training and review, and argued that they need more
support for the program to succeed. These findings authenticate Richard Elmore’s
principle of reciprocity, which recommends that, “for every unit of performance I require
of you, I owe you a unit of capacity to produce those results” (Elmore, 2005, p.20). Both
the findings and the literature suggest that for sustainable change to occur, extensive
professional development, ongoing communication, and continuous support for RTI is
necessary.
Although there were many factors that challenged RTI implementation efforts,
administrators were able to successfully utilize leadership strategies to build capacity to
support implementation efforts. Administrators indicated that after one year of
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 89
implementation they saw improvements in the number of valid referrals, and a reduction
in the number of inappropriate referrals. The research and theories support the findings
that RTI is a beneficial program that requires excellent leadership and strong
organizational frameworks.
In chapter 5, findings of the research, further conclusions and implications will be
presented, along with future recommendations.
!

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 90
CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, RECCOMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

This study sought to capture the concerns of Head Start preschool administrators as
they engaged in implementing RTI in order to address a glaring gap in the available
literature. By exploring the implementation process from the perspective of the grassroots
educational leaders, this study sought to give a voice to the leaders who engaged in
systems wide implementation of RTI. To date, the majority of the research conducted on
RTI at the preschool level has focused on data at the classroom level and involved very
little analysis of the process as an organizational change. This study aimed to investigate
both the challenges and best practices of implementation by analyzing the leaders who
were tasked with creating a system to support RTI. To this end, the following research
questions were included:
Research Questions:
1.) What was the role of administrators in the process of RTI implementation at Head
Start Preschools?
2.) What factors supported and impeded the process of RTI implementation

at Head Start Preschools?

3.) What implementation strategies did administrators of Head Start Preschools use to
effectively support the process of RTI?
4.) How did Head Start Preschool administrators evaluate the effectiveness of RTI
implementation and to what extent was implementation successful?
A mixed-methods approach was used to gather data in response to these questions.
Quantitative data was collected from a survey distributed at a district wide meeting, and
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 91
qualitative data was collected from open-ended questions on the survey and interviews.
The combined use of both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single analysis
allowed for triangulation whereby each method was used to enhance the other’s
limitations (Maxwell, 2013).
Summary of Findings

In the discussion below, key findings from the data presented in chapter four are
discussed, in order, by research question.
The first research question sought to identify the role of administrators in the RTI
implementation process. A review of the survey data showed that the majority of
administrators felt that their role had changed to support RTI. Administrators indicated
that their role was not solely to coordinate timelines and professional development
opportunities for their staff, but also to inspire, encourage, and build teacher buy-in to
support the implementation process.
The second research question examined the factors that supported and impeded
implementation efforts. Qualitative data revealed that administrators saw many benefits
to implementing the RTI program, such as improved classroom management and a
reduction in referrals. The most significant challenges noted were a lack of time to
complete paperwork responsibilities and conduct the necessary training and support to
the teachers. Limited staff and recurring teacher turnover were also cited as barriers to
implementation. The amalgamation of all these challenges was intensified by the fact
that simultaneously Head Start teachers were tasked with implementing several other
initiatives along with RTI. Although there was significant resistance from both
administrators and teachers, when the program was initially introduced, after a few
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 92
months of implementation, it was reported that the resistance decreased significantly and
teachers were successfully implementing the Tier I portion of the program.
Despite the challenges, administrators were successful in utilizing leadership
strategies to support RTI implementation efforts. Research question three examined
those strategies and found that administrators who were successful in using leadership
strategies reported having more buy-in at their schools. Building knowledge, setting up
an infrastructure, and using data driven systems were cited as significant contributors to
successful adoption of RTI. Administrators indicated that their own knowledge
development was a critical factor that allowed them to be flexible with the mandates and
empower teachers by having the knowledge to explain why the requirements are in place.
Another critical factor that supported capacity building was relationship building and
having open lines of communication.
Research question four sought to evaluate the effectiveness of RTI
implementation and examined how administrators assessed the extent of implementation
success. Qualitative data revealed that every administrator interviewed indicated that
they looked to the students and teachers to evaluate effectiveness of RTI implementation.
Some administrators also analyzed data and noted that classrooms that utilized the
program had less referrals, while other classrooms were not identifying students
correctly. Finally, administrators looked at improved classroom management and a
display of curriculum materials to evaluate implementation efforts.
Implications

This study sought to bridge the gap between legislative policy and implementation
at the organizational level by giving voice to the grassroots implementers as they
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 93
attempted to make RTI a reality. RTI implementation is a complicated process, and the
first implication concerns the nature of the various components of the process. Data from
this study revealed that while the Tier I component of RTI was fairly easy to implement,
the universal screening, progress monitoring, and resulting data analysis, required a
significant amount of time, training, and support. If RTI is to be a reality in schools,
caution should be used in attempting to implement all of these processes at once.
Beginning the process with a focus on Tier I and allowing teachers to become familiar
the various components of screening, progress monitoring, and data analysis would lay a
foundation upon which to build RTI.
A second implication concerns the importance of professional development in RTI
implementation efforts for both teachers and administrators. As schools begin designing
their RTI models, care should be taken to ensure that both teachers and administrators
have the time to receive professional development in advance and throughout the
implementation process. Administrators in this study noted that one of the greatest
barriers to RTI implementation was the lack of time to execute continuous and supportive
professional development throughout the school year. This concern compounded with
continuous teacher turnover, exemplifies the need for ongoing training opportunities
throughout the school year. Examining the school calendar prior and predetermining the
content on designated professional development days can better prepare administrators to
prioritize professional development for RTI.
Another implication for practice consists of the need for administrators to ensure
sufficient resources to sustain RTI implementation. This study revealed that more time
and staff was necessary to implement all of the components of the program.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 94
Administrators noted a gap in supervision during the implementation of the Tier II
portion, which required teachers to work in a small group of five students, leaving the
second teacher with up to fifteen students to supervise. This concern suggests that
administrators will need to look closely at existing resources and examine if they are
sufficient enough to provide the necessary support for Tier II implementation. If they
not, administrators will be tasked with the responsibility of examining the structure of the
organization and finding the necessary resources to make RTI a reality.
A final implication exists in the need for schools to provide administrators with
training in leadership strategies. Developing a moral purpose, understanding change,
relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making (Fullan,
2014) are all critical approaches that can be used to support administrative training. This
study revealed that administrators who utilized some of these leadership strategies, were
more likely to set up an infrastructure, develop strong communication networks, and
build buy-in for RTI. By preparing administrators on the front end, they will have more
skills to bring about organizational change in their programs.
Limitations

In addition to those listed in chapter one, there are several limitations to the
current study. Qualitative information generated from a small number of interviews is
not considered to be highly generalizable. This study in particular was limited to five
interviews in one county and is therefore prone to criticism that this may not be the case
in other organizations. The level of training and resources could be so drastically
different in various Head Start programs across the country that it would be difficult to
generalize to all Head Start preschool programs. Evidence from this study could be
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 95
considered more compelling because the results have been triangulated with recent
research that supports similar conclusions. In addition, the design of this study imposed
limitations through its focus only on preschools. Consequently, the results are not
generalizable to programs implementing RTI in other grades.
Recommendations for Future Research

In order to expand the content and context of the current study, there are several
recommendations for future research:
1.) Further research should be conducted to explore the implementation process following
the first year of RTI. Because this study focused only on the process for administrators in
the first year of RTI implementation, a follow-up study would be ideal to determine what
concerns exist after the first year and whether those concerns vary significantly from
those expressed during the first year of implementation.
2.) An additional area of intriguing research consists of examining the challenges and
experiences that the teachers face in the classroom as they implement RTI and compare
and contrast that to the reports of administrators. Studying the concerns of teachers and
then looking for similarities or differences between their experiences and those of the
administrators, would offer a perspective on how administration is perceived. Having this
knowledge would assist in guiding administrators on which leadership strategies are
producing positive responses and which strategies are operating as barriers to the process.
3.) In addition, future research would benefit from exploring the concerns of the parents
of at-risk students who are receiving RTI services. The concerns of parents are often
overlooked despite the fact that these vital group of stakeholders experience a variety of
concerns regarding their children’s progress in school. The data that would come from
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 96
studying the challenges and successes of parents would greatly enhance the research on
RTI and allow schools to design programs that meet the needs of parents as well.
4.) Finally, future research is needed to study how professional development is
introduced and maintained throughout the school year to support RTI. In this study, there
was no differentiation between the time allotted for training and support, or the context in
which the training was conducted. Studying the type, format, and frequency of
professional development for RTI could provide data that would allow future
administrators to best support professional development practices.
Conclusions
This study sought to examine the process of RTI implementation from the
perspective of educational leaders who were tasked with building an infrastructure to
support the implementation of a new program. Although this was a daunting mission that
received substantial resistance early on, most of the administrators in this study were
successful in building a strong organizational framework with support for the program
within just one year of implementation. This study reflects the importance of a strong
educational leader in implementing change and has effectively highlighted specific
leadership strategies that support administrators in this process. Results of this study
suggest there is hope for securing buy-in for a new program, despite the challenges of
limited time and resources compounded with increasing mandates and responsibilities.
One of the intents of this study was to develop a blueprint that can serve to motivate and
guide future educational leaders as they attempt to make organizational change in their
programs. By examining the successes and challenges that these educational leaders
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 97
endured following a year of RTI implementation, the hope is that additional grassroots
leaders will use these tools to support needed transformations in their own organizations.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 98
References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic
change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 1–25.
Applequist, K. F. (2007). No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Encyclopedia of Special
Education.
Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-
tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making,
and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.
Autor, D.H. (2014). Skills, Education, and the Rise of Earnings Inequality among the
“other 99 Percent.” Science, 344, 843, May 23, 2014.
Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school
reform: New American Schools after a decade. Rand Corporation.
Bernhardt, V., & Hebert, C. (2014). Response to Intervention and Continuous School
Improvement: Using Data, Vision and Leadership to Design, Implement, and
Evaluate a Schoolwide Prevention System. Routledge.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post school outcomes of youth with
disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional
Children, 62(5), 399-414.
Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River education
district model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered
problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 99
to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8-12.
Bradley, R.H., & Corwyn, R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399.doi: 10.1146/annurev
psych.53.100901. 135233
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1994). Contributions of protective and risk
factors to literacy and socioemotional competency in former Head Start children
attending kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(3), 407-425.
Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to
intervention statewide. 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. 331–342). New York: Springer.
Cheney, D., Flower, A. L., & Templeton, T. (2008). Applying response to intervention
metrics in the social domain for students at risk of developing emotional or
behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 42, 108–126. doi:
10.1177/0022466907313349
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Coleman, M. R., Roth, F. P., & West, T. (2009). Roadmap to pre-K RTI: Applying
response to intervention in preschool settings. National Center for Learning
Disabilities, Inc. Retrieved July, 7.
Committee for children (2002). Second step for preschoolers. Third Edition. Seattle, WA:
Committee for Children.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 100
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Daggett, R. & Jones, D. (2008) The process of change – why change, what to do, and
how to do it (White Paper) from Leading change in high schools. International
Center for Leadership in Education
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly,41(1),
121-153.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.
National Research Council Committee on Minority Representation in Special
Education.
Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (2014). Head Start program fact sheet.
Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/ hslc/ standards/law/h
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study –Kindergarten (ECLS-K)- Retrieved January 2015
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based
education: A model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational
Research, 99(4), 195-211.
Egger, H. L., & Angold, A. (2006). Common emotional and behavioral disorders in
preschool children: presentation, nosology, and epidemiology. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(3-4), 313-337.
Elmore, R. F. (2005, June). Accountable leadership. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 69,
No. 2, pp. 134-142). Taylor & Francis Group.
Feil, E. G., Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1995). The early screening project for
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 101
young children with behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 3(4), 194-202.
Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Alford, L. E., Freeman, D. J., Irwin, S., Schmidt, W. H., &
Schwille, J. R. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look
at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 96-124.
Freeman, R., Smith, C., Zarcone, J., Kimbrough, P., Tieghi-Benet, M., Wickham, D., et
al. (2005). Building a statewide plan for embedding positive behavior support in
human service organizations.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 109–
119
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why,
and how valid is it?. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The elementary
school journal, 391-421.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change. Educational leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in
schools. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3), 409-419.
Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook.
John Wiley & Sons.
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in
schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Transaction Publishers.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 102
Goldstein, N. E.; Arnold, D. H.; Rosenberg, J. L.; Stowe, R. M.; & Ortiz, C. (2001).
Contagion of aggression in day care classrooms as a function of peer and teacher
response. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), pp. 708–719.
Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J., & Nylander, D.
(2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1-22.
Hagans-Murillo, K. (2005). Using a response-to-intervention approach in preschool to
promote literacy. The California School Psychologist, 10(1), 45-54.
Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for
social behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 213–225.
Hochschild, J. L. & Scovronick, N. (2004). The American Dream and the Public School.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, D. (2013). Exploding the myths of school reform. School Leadership &
Management, 33(4), 304-321.
Hord, S.M., & Huling-Austin, L. (2014). Effective Curriculum Implementation: Some
Promising New Insights, 87(1), 96-115.
Hughes, C., & Dexter, D. D. (2008). Field studies of RtI programs. Retrieved
January, 2015.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350, 108 Cong.
(2004).
Kamps, D., Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Abbott, M., & Utley, C. (2002).
Center for early intervention in reading and behavior to improve the performance
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 103
of young children. Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of
Kansas
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., ... &
Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for
English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier
intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153-168.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business
review, 73(2), 59-67.
Korenman, S., Miller, J. E., & Sjaastad, J. E. (1995). Long-term poverty and child
development in the United States: Results from the NLSY. Children and Youth
Services Review, 17(1), 127-155.
Kratochwill, T. R., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Professional
development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models:
Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 618.
Kupersmidst, J. B., Bryant, D., and Willoughby, M.T., (2000) Prevelance of aggressive
behaviors amongst preschoolers in Head Start and community child-care
programs.Behavioral Disorders, 26, 45-52
Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide
positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle
school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 701-712.
LeBuffe, P.A. & Naglieri, J.A. (2012). Devereux early childhood assessment for
preschoolers, second edition. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Early Learning Company
Lembke, E. S., Garman, C., Deno, S. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). One elementary
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 104
school's implementation of response to intervention (RTI). Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 26(4), 361-373.
Lepi, K. (2014) The Top 10 (And Counting) Education Systems In The World. Retrieved
from http://www.edudemic.com/learning-curve-report-education/
Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999).
Effects of two preschool shared reading interventions on the emergent literacy
skills of children from low income families. Journal of Early Intervention, 22,
306–322.
MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report Np. 65).
Baltimore, MD; Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
Mahdavi, J. N., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2009). Pioneering RTI Systems that
Work: Social Validity, Collaboration, and Context. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 42(2), 64-72.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Missall, K. N., McConnell, S.R., & Cadigan, K. (2006). Early literacy development: Skill
growth and relations between classroom variables for preschool children. Journal
of Early Intervention, 29 (1), 1-21.
Myers, D. M., Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2011). Increasing teachers’ use of praise with
a response-to-intervention approach. Education and Treatment of Children, 34,
35–59
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 105
Nelson, J. R., Hurley, K. D., Synhorst, L., Epstein, M. H., Stage, S., & Buckley, J.
(2009).
The child outcomes of a behavior model. Exceptional Children, 76, 7–30.
Nylander, D. (2009). Navigating through RTI with a compass and a lifeboat.Early
Childhood RTI Summitt.
O'Brien, R. W., D'Elio, M. A., Vaden-Kiernan, M., Magee, C., Younoszai, T., Keane, M.
J., & Hailey, L. (2002). A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: FACES
Technical Report I.
O’Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality:
Reevaluating the relationship between poverty and special education
placement. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.
O'Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting
and sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools,49(3), 297-310.
OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies
and Practices (Volume IV), PISA , OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en, pp. 127 – 164.
Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Doubling student performance: And
finding the resources to do it. Corwin Press.
Odden, A. and Picus, L.O. (2009). Wyoming School Use of Resources 2: Making More
Progress in Identifying how Schools Use Resources in Ways that Boos Student
Performance on State Tests
Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 106
language learners:“Referring into RTI”. Journal of Learning Disabilities,43(3),
269-288.
Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Payne, R. K. (2003). Working with students from poverty: Discipline. aha! Process, Inc.
Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Sage.
Quesenberry, A.C., Hemmeter, M.L., and Ostrosky, M.M. (2011). Addressing
Challenging Behaviors in Head Start: A Closer Look at Program Policies and
Procedures. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(4), 209-220
PBIS- Retrieved in January 2015: http://www.pbis.org/about-us
Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., & Alberg, M.
(2001). Two-and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring
Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(3), 323-346.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). The Professional Educator: Lessons from Finland.American
Educator, 35(2), 34-38.
Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary
procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 21-27.
Sugai, G. (2009b). School-wide behavior support and response to intervention. Retrieved
February, 2015.
Suitts, S. (2007). A New Majority: Low Income Students in the South's Public Schools.
SEF Research Report. Southern Education Foundation.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 107
Thuneberg, H., Hautamäki, J., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Vainikainen, M. P., &
Hilasvuori, T. (2014). Conceptual change in adopting the nationwide special
education strategy in Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 15(1), 37-56.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools: A leadership brief.
Learning First Alliance.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., &
Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe
reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional
approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
United States Department of Education. (2013). Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/beginning.
html#sec1
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of
the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children
for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to intervention as a
means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 69, 391–409.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to
Intervention as a Vehicle for Distinguishing Between Children With and Without
Reading Disabilities Evidence for the Role of Kindergarten and First-Grade
Interventions. Journal of learning disabilities, 39(2), 157-169.
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 108
Zarefsky, D. (1986). President Johnson's war on poverty: rhetoric and history (1
st
ed).
Alabama: University Alabama Press.

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 109
Appendix A
Recruitment Tool

Hi I am Dana Jacobson and I and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School
of Education at University of Southern California. I am studying the
implementation strategies that leaders use to support Response to Intervention
(RTI) at the Los Angeles County Office of Education Head Start Preschools. I am
investigating the factors that support and impede the process of RTI
implementation.

You are cordially invited to participate in the study. If you agree, to participate, you
will be asked to complete a 15 minutes survey that contains multiple!choice and
open!ended questions.

Depending upon your responses in the survey, you may be asked to participate in a 45
minute audio-recorded interview.

Participation in the study is voluntary and will not affect your relationship with your
employer or USC.

Your identity will remain confidential at all times.
If you have questions, or would like to participate, please contact me at (818)
448!5788 Thank you for your time,

Dana Jacobson

Date of last edits: April 1, 2015
UPIRB#: UP-15-00222

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 110
Appendix B
Survey Instrument

"
This survey is anticipated to take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Your
identity as a participant will remain confidential.
If you have questions, please contact me at (818) 448!5788
Thank you for your time,
Dana Jacobson

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 111

#$%&'%"()*($%"+,%"-.$$./)012"
"
3.4*"(4**%0+"'(,..$"5.')+).02"6)*%(+.*7"8'')'+&0+"6)*%(+.*7"9%0+&$":%&$+,"
;..*<)0&+.*7"6)'&=)$)+)%'";..*<)0&+.*7"><4(&+).0";..*<)0&+.*"
?+,%*2""@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@"
"
A,%"04B=%*".-"C%&*'"C.4",&D%"/.*E%<")0"B&0&1%B%0+2"?0%"C%&*7"A/."
C%&*'".*"B.*%7"F%''" +,&0".0%"C%&*7"G.+"&+"&$$"
"
3.4*",)1,%'+"%<4(&+).0&$"<%1*%%2"8''.()&+%'"<%1*%%7"H&(,%$.*I'"<%1*%%7"
9&'+%*'"<%1*%%7" 6.(+.*&+%"<%1*%%"
"
3.4*"<%1*%%"B&J.*2">&*$C";,)$<,..<"><4(&+).07";,)$<"6%D%$.5B%0+7"K.()&$"
/%$-&*%7"#4=$)(" 8?+,%*2""@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@"
"
6)<"C.4"5&*+)()5&+%")0"+,%"LMNO!!!NP"QAR"
)B5$%B%0+&+).0"%--.*+'S"3%'"G."
"
R0'+*4(+).0'2"#4+"&0"TUV")0"+,%"!"#$=.W"+,&+"',./'",./"B4(,"C.4"&1*%%"
/)+,"+,%"-.$$./)01"'%0+%0(%'X"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 112
"

YX ?4*"'(,..$",&'"'+&--"(.0'%0'4'".*"T=4C")0V"-.*"QAR""""""""""! ! ! !
!

ZX ?4*"'(,..$['"&!

K455.*+)D%"\)%X"5*.D)<%<",%$57"-&()$)+&+%<"
")B5$%B%0+&+).0]
^X R"-%%$"(.0-)<%0+")0"BC"&=)$)+C"+."+*&)0"'+&--".0"+,%""""""""""""""""! ! ! !
!

5*.1*%''"B.0)+.*)01"+..$'"\6>;8!#L]"
NMX R"/.4$<"*%(.BB%0<"+,%"QAR"B.<%$"+.".+,%*"
%<4(&+.*'X"
! ! ! !
!

NNX "R"&B"'&+)'-)%<"/)+,"BC"'(,..$'["5.$)()%'"&0<"
5*.(%<4*%'"+."'455.*+"QARX"
! ! ! !
!
"

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 113

RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 114
Appendix C
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
"#$$%&'!()*##+!#,!-./)01%#2!
!
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
!
"#$%!&'()*+,!)-')!&'(./.)')0!'12!$34020!
!
3#/!0'&!%24%1&.!1#!50'1%)%501&!%2!0!'&$&0')*!$1/.67!!"&$&0')*!$1/.%&$!%2)+/.&!#2+6!
5+&!8*#!4#+/210'%+6!)*##$&!1#!109&!50'17!:*%$!.#)/;&21!&<5+0%2$!%2,#';01%#2!
0=#/1!1*%$!$1/.67!3#/!$*#/+.!0$9!>/&$1%#2$!0=#/1!0261*%2?!1*01!%$!/2)+&0'!1#!6#/7!
!
3#/'! 50'1%)%501%#2! %$! 4#+/210'6! 02.! 8%++! 2#1! 0,,&)1! 6#/'! '&+01%#2$*%5! 8%1*! 6#/'!
&;5+#6&'!#'!@(A7!
!
56"5789!7&!#:9!8#6;:*&!0%;!#,!1*%$!$1/.6!%$!1#!,%2.!#/1!1*&!%;5+&;&2101%#2!$1'01&?%&$!1*01!+&0.&'$!/$&!1#!
$/55#'1! "&$5#2$&! 1#! B21&'4&21%#2! C":BD! 01! 1*&! E#$! F2?&+&$! A#/216! G,,%)&! #,!
-./)01%#2!H&0.!(10'1!I'&$)*##+$J!$5&)%,%)0++6!1*&!,0)1#'$!1*01!$/55#'1!02.!%;5&.&!
1*&!5'#)&$$!#,!":B!%;5+&;&2101%#27!
!
5="#$>$5=?#!$?@7A@9B9?#!
B,!6#/!0?'&&!1#!109&!50'1!%2!1*%$!$1/.6K!6#/!8%++!=&!0$9&.!1#!)#;5+&1&!02!#2+%2&!$/'4&6!
8*%)*!%$!021%)%501&.!1#!109&!0=#/1!LM!;%2/1&$!1#!)#;5+&1&7!!3#/!.#!2#1!*04&!1#!
02$8&'!026!>/&$1%#2$!6#/!.#2N1!8021!1#K!)+%)9!O2&<1P!#'!OQRFP!%2!1*&!$/'4&6!1#!;#4&!
1#!1*&!2&<1!>/&$1%#27!
!
S&5&2.%2?!/5#2!6#/'!'&$5#2$&$!1#!1*&!$/'4&6K!6#/!;06!=&!%24%1&.!1#!50'1%)%501&!%2!
02! %21&'4%&8K! 021%)%501&.! 1#! 109&! 055'#<%;01&+6! TM! ;%2/1&$! 1#! )#;5+&1&7! :*&!
%21&'4%&8!8%++!=&!0/.%#U105&.!8%1*!6#/'!5&';%$$%#27!3#/!.#!2#1!*04&!1#!02$8&'!026!
>/&$1%#2$!6#/!.#2N1!8021!1#!
!
CONFIDENTIALITY
F26!%.&21%,%0=+&!%2,#';01%#2!#=10%2&.!%2!)#22&)1%#2!8%1*!1*%$!$1/.6!8%++!'&;0%2!
)#2,%.&21%0+7!!3#/'!'&$5#2$&$!8%++!=&!)#.&.!8%1*!0!,0+$&!20;&!C5$&/.#26;D!02.!
;0%210%2&.! $&50'01&+6! ,'#;! %.&21%,%0=+&! %2,#';01%#27! ! :*&! 0/.%#U105&$! 8%++! =&!
.&$1'#6&.!#2)&!1*&6!*04&!=&&2!1'02$)'%=&.7!
!
:*&!.010!8%++!=&!$1#'&.!%2!0!+#)9&.!#,,%)&!02.R#'!#2!0!50$$8#'.!5'#1&)1&.!)#;5/1&'!
%2!1*&!'&$&0')*&'N$!#,,%)&7!:*&!%.&21%,%0=+&!%2,#';01%#2!8%++!=&!.&$1'#6&.!#2)&!1*&!
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 115
$1/.6!*0$!=&&2!)#;5+&1&.7!:*&!'&;0%2%2?!.010!8%++!=&!'&10%2&.!01!1*&!.%$)'&1%#2!#,!
1*&!'&$&0')*&'!02.!;06!=&!/$&.!%2!,/1/'&!'&$&0')*!$1/.%&$7!!B,!6#/!.#!2#1!8021!6#/'!
.010!/$&.!%2!,/1/'&!$1/.%&$K!6#/!$*#/+.!2#1!50'1%)%501&!%2!1*%$!$1/.67!!!
!
:*&! ;&;=&'$! #,! 1*&! '&$&0')*! 1&0;! 02.! 1*&! @2%4&'$%16! #,! (#/1*&'2! A0+%,#'2%0N$!
H/;02!(/=V&)1$!I'#1&)1%#2!I'#?'0;!CH(IID!;06!0))&$$!1*&!.0107!:*&!H(II!'&4%&8$!
02.!;#2%1#'$!'&$&0')*!$1/.%&$!1#!5'#1&)1!1*&!'%?*1$!02.!8&+,0'&!#,!'&$&0')*!$/=V&)1$7!
!
W*&2!1*&!'&$/+1$!#,!1*&!'&$&0')*!0'&!5/=+%$*&.!#'!.%$)/$$&.!%2!)#2,&'&2)&$K!2#!
%.&21%,%0=+&!%2,#';01%#2!8%++!=&!/$&.7!!
!
$?@98#$C=#7"!>7?#=>#!$?&7"B=#$7?!!
S020!X0)#=$#2!4%0!5*#2&!01!YLY!TTY!MZYY!#'!&;0%+!01!.0207+04%02[?;0%+7)#;7!
!
$"D!>7?#=>#!$?&7"B=#$7?!
@2%4&'$%16!I0'9!B2$1%1/1%#20+!"&4%&8!\#0'.!C@IB"\DK!]Z^_!(#/1*!`+#8&'!(1'&&1!
a]_LK!E#$!F2?&+&$K!AF!!b__YbU_Z_^K!C^L]D!Y^LUM^Z^!#'!/5%'=[/$)7&./!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
E0$1!&.%1$!;0.&!#2c!=4+./!EF!GHEI!d!B2,#';01%#2!(*&&1!,#'!-<&;51!F55+%)01%#2$!
@IB"\ac!@IULMU__^^^!
!
!
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 116
Appendix D
Interview Protocol
"
A,)'")0+%*D)%/")'"1.)01"+.")0-.*B"BC"*%'%&*(,"_4%'+).0'"-.*"BC"<)''%*+&+).07"/,)(,"
/)$$"%D%0+4&$$C"=%"54=$)',%<"'."C.4*"-%%<=&(E")'")0(*%<)=$C"D&$4&=$%"+."B%X"A,%"
)0+%*D)%/"5*.(%''"',.4$<"+&E%"&55*.W)B&+%$C"OP"B)04+%'X"6."C.4"+,)0E"+,)'"+)B%"
-*&B%"/)$$"/.*E"-.*"C.4S"
"
R"/.4$<"$)E%"+."*%B)0<"C.47"+,&+"C.4",&D%"+,%"*)1,+"+."/)+,<*&/"-*.B"+,%"'+4&0C"+)B%X"3.4"(&0"(,..'%"+."$%&D%".*"0.+"&0'/%*"&0C"_4%'+).0'"&'E%<"',.4$<"C.4"
-%%$"40(.B-.*+&=$%"&+"&0C"+)B%"<4*)01".4*"<)'(4'').0X"6."C.4"1)D%"B%"
5%*B)'').0"+."B.D%"-.*/&*"
6."C.4",&D%"&0C"_4%'+).0'"-.*"B%"=%-.*%"/%"=%1)0S"?E7"$%+'"1%+"'+&*+%<`"
"
NX]"a,&+",&'"C.4*"*.$%"=%%0")0"+,%"QAR")B5$%B%0+&+).0"5*.(%''"+,)'"5&'+"'(,..$"C%&*S"
"
"
LX]"R0"/,&+"/&C'",&'"F8;?>"5*%5&*%"
"
cX]"A."/,&+"%W+%0+"&*%"QAR")B5$%B%0+&+).0"%--.*+'"B%%+)01"F8;?>['"1.&$'"+,)'"C%&*S"
"
"
OX]"a,)(,"QAR"+*&)0)01'"/%*%"+,%"B.'+"D&$4&=$%"+."C.4"&0<"+,%"'+&--S"
"
"
PX]"a,)(,"+*&)0)01'"/%*%"+,%"$%&'+"D&$4&=$%"+."C.4"&0<"'+&--S"
"
"
dX]"a,&+",&'"=%%0"+,%"+%&(,)01"'+&--['"*%'5.0'%"+.")B5$%B%0+)01"QARS"
"
"
YX]"a,&+",&'"=%%0"C.4*"%W5%*)%0(%"/)+,"'(,%<4$)01"+*&)0)01'"&0<"B%%+)01'"+."'455.*+"
QARS"
"
"
ZX]"R0"C.4*".5)0).07"/,)(,"(.B5.0%0+'".-"+,%"QAR")B5$%B%0+&+).0"5*.(%''"/%*%"
'+*&)1,+-.*/&*<"&0<"-&)*$C"%&'C"+.")B5$%B%0+S"#$%&'%"%$&=.*&+%".0"/,CX"
!
!
^X]"a,)(,"(.B5.0%0+'".-"+,%"QAR")B5$%B%0+&+).0"5*.(%''"/%*%"+,%"B.'+"(,&$$%01)01"+."
)B5$%B%0+S"#$%&'%"%$&=.*&+%".0"/,CX"
RTI: FACTORS THAT FACILITATE AND IMPEDE 117
"
"
NMX]"a,&+"*%'.4*(%'"/%*%"B.'+",%$5-4$"+."C.4")0")B5$%B%0+)01"QARS"
"
"
NNX]"a,&+"&<<)+).0&$"*%'.4*(%'"/.4$<"=%",%$5-4$"+."C.4")0")B5$%B%0+)01"QARS"
"
"
NLX]"a,&+"<."C.4"E0./"0./"+,&+"C.4"/.4$<"<."<)--%*%0+$C"*%1&*<)01"QAR"
)B5$%B%0+&+).0S""
"
"
NcX]"R'"+,%*%"&0C+,)01"+,&+"/.4$<"=%",%$5-4$"-.*"B%"+."E0./"&=.4+S"
"
"
"
A,&0E"C.4"'."B4(,"-.*"C.4*"+)B%"&0<"C.4*"-%%<=&(EX"R-"C.4",&D%"&0C"&<<)+).0&$"
_4%'+).0'7"C.4"&*%"B.*%"+,&0"/%$(.B%"+."(.0+&(+"B%X"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This mixed-methods study investigated the lived experiences of educational leaders as they implemented a new Response to Intervention (RTI) program in their schools. Surveys were distributed and collected from administrators in 13 Head Start Preschool sites in the County of Orange, and were followed by multi-site administrator interviews. Research questions were developed to identify program implementation strategies, challenges to implementation, as well as the role of administrators and how they evaluated progress. ❧ Findings indicated that leaders who had the greatest success in building capacity for RTI developed their own knowledge of the program, valued inter-personal relationships and communication, and were more flexible with their teaching staff. Recurring challenges to implementation were insufficient training, inadequate time to manage all of the components of RTI, inability to meet all the demands of increasing mandates, and chronic teacher turnover. Administrators in this study consistently looked to teachers and students in the classroom to measure success of the program and reported that following just one year of implementation there were more appropriate special education referrals and more students were provided with targeted interventions to support their needs. ❧ The purpose of this study was to develop a strategy guide for educational leaders who intend to make organizational change in their programs. By examining the implications of this study, and considering the recommendations proposed for future research, grassroots leaders can develop an understanding of the challenges and strategies for creating organizational change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Pivotal positions, critical experiences, and preparation programs in the career paths of superintendents

PDF

Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools

PDF

The benefits of mentorship to new high school assistant principals and principals

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

A qualitative study on Hawaii's use of Race to the Top funding on extended learning time in a Zone of School Innovation

PDF

Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

An examination of teachers’ perceived value and knowledge of mathematical development in early childhood settings

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Indicators of successful administrative leadership practice within high-stakes performance-based preschool programs

Asset Metadata

Creator Jacobson, Dana (author)

Core Title Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/23/2015

Defense Date 10/20/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administrator,Head Start,OAI-PMH Harvest,Preschool,RTI

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Richter, Lena (committee member)

Creator Email dana.lavian@gmail.com,dlavian@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-192408

Unique identifier UC11279388

Identifier etd-JacobsonDa-3990.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-192408 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JacobsonDa-3990.pdf

Dmrecord 192408

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jacobson, Dana

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA