University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content The Implementation of Response to Intervention: An Adapted Gap Analysis
Shabari Karumbaya
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Education
(Educational Leadership)
August 2023

© Copyright by Shabari Karumbaya 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Shabari Karumbaya certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Naseer Cortez
Lawrence Picus
Darline Robles, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Given the severe and lifelong consequences of school failure, students must have the skills and
knowledge to succeed in college and beyond. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a reform effort
that addresses these issues. The framework helps identify students with disabilities who may
require more intensive support. However, educators are challenged to make RTI work due to a
lack of clarity and consistency in their schools’ systems and supports. An adapted gap analysis
framework was used in this study to understand knowledge, motivational and organizational
influences impacting the implementation of RTI in a private international school. Evidence-
based recommendations for solutions were generated using the new world Kirkpatrick model.
The stakeholders of focus were homeroom and learning support teachers in Kindergarten through
second-grade classrooms. The qualitative methods of assessment used were semi-structured
interviews and document analysis. Organizational assets were that teachers valued RTI and had
positive mindsets about student learning. Gaps were found in teachers’ factual, conceptual, and
perceptual knowledge of RTI, teacher self-efficacy and organizational supports. Findings
indicated that teachers need training in using evidence-based interventions, progress monitoring,
and data-based decision making. Organizationally, there is a need for greater alignment between
grade levels, clarity on RTI tiers and processes, and continuous evaluation of the implementation
of RTI. Recommendations include setting up a schoolwide leadership team to lead out RTI
implementation with fidelity.
Keywords: Response to Intervention, tiered systems of support, teacher knowledge to
implement RTI, teacher motivation to implement RTI, organizational factors, gap analysis.

v
Dedication
To my teachers, past and present.
To my parents, who were my first teachers and my son, who wants to be a teacher.
To Jo, beloved cousin, this is for you. I miss you every single day.
To my students, who give me a reason to be excited to go to work each day.

vi
Acknowledgements
My beloved family, who expected me to become a doctor in the 1990s, thank you for
believing in this late bloomer! Som, little brother, you inspire me daily with your courage. For
Gerlie, my deepest gratitude; it was a lucky day for us all when you walked through our door.
Ari, my son, your reverse psychology worked! When I mentioned that, post-doctorate, you
would have my undivided attention, that look of horror was comedic gold. Gotcha!
My posse of girlfriends, thank you for being my cheerleaders for the past few years and
for dragging me out for bubbly when I felt anything but effervescent. I promise I will be a better
friend now!
A big shout out to my incredible USC doctoral cohort for stimulating discussions and
inspiration. Christine, Gynelle, Francesca, and Amy, you were the best company with whom to
complete a COVID project! Shuna, you were an incredible and brave role model. I promised you
I would get here. Jen Norman, thank you for the tech support!
A final profound thank you to my doctoral committee. To my advisor Darline Robles,
your gentle encouragement, support, and guidance are the reason this dissertation got finished.
Unlike La Reina, I may not have won a derby, but I finished the race! Dr. Nasser and Dr. Picus,
thank you for being some of the few people in the world who will read this dissertation. Your
time and valuable input were a gift.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.....................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Performance Goal........................................................................................4
Related Literature.................................................................................................................4
Importance of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................6
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal ...........................................7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................8
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................8
Definitions............................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................11
Historical Context of RTI ..................................................................................................11
RTI as an Alternative Methods of Learning Disability Identification ...............................12
RTI Models ........................................................................................................................14
Essential Components of RTI ............................................................................................16
Response to Intervention Tiers ..........................................................................................19
RTI Efficacy.......................................................................................................................23
Implementation Integrity of RTI ........................................................................................27
Teacher Perceptions of RTI ...............................................................................................30

viii
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................31
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...................................................32
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................44
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................44
Assessment of Performance Influences .............................................................................46
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ..............................................................52
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................54
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................54
Trustworthiness of Data .....................................................................................................55
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................55
Ethics..................................................................................................................................58
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................59
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................61
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................62
Determination of Assets and Needs ...................................................................................63
Results and Findings ..........................................................................................................63
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ..........................................................................91
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................92
Organizational Performance Goal......................................................................................93
Description of the Stakeholder Group of This Study.........................................................93
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study ....................................................................93
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ...93
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................114
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................128
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................129

ix
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................130
References ....................................................................................................................................132
Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Homeroom Teachers ..........................................................147
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................147
Introduction ......................................................................................................................147
Questions..........................................................................................................................148
Closing Comments ...........................................................................................................155
Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Learning Support Teachers ................................................156
Introduction ......................................................................................................................156
Questions..........................................................................................................................157
Closing Comments ...........................................................................................................163
Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet .....................................................................164
Appendix D: Recruitment Email .................................................................................................166
Appendix E: Document Analysis Protocol ..................................................................................167
Appendix F: Evaluation Tool to be Used Immediately Following Training ...............................168
Appendix G: Level 2 Evaluation Tool to be Used Before and After Training ............................169
Appendix H: Evaluation Tool Delayed After a Period of Training for Levels 1-3 .....................171

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Performance Goal and Stakeholder Goals 7
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 36
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 39
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 42
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 47
Table 6: Summary of Motivational Influences and Method of Assessment 49
Table 7: Summary of Organizational Influences and the Method of Assessment 51
Table 8: Participating Stakeholders 62
Table 9: KMO Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 89
Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 95
Table 11: Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations 104
Table 12: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 107
Table 13: Outcomes, Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 116
Table 14: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing of Evaluation 117
Table 15: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 119
Table 16: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 124
Table 17: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 125
Appendix E: Document Analysis Protocol 167

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process Flow Chart 45

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Despite the efforts of educators and schools, some students will experience difficulties in
academic achievement and require additional support (Weber, 2013). Data released by the
National Center for Education Statistics (McFarland et al., 2019) showed that in the United
States, two million students dropped out of school and did not earn a high school diploma or
equivalent. Furthermore, it is a concern that students’ outcomes differ by race and ethnicity. In
2018–19, 93% of Asian students graduated from high school compared to 89% of White, 82% of
Hispanic, 80% of African American, and 74% of Native American students (McFarland et al.,
2019). The consequences of school failure are severe and lifelong. For example, the median
earnings for those who did not complete high school were $26,000 compared to $55,000 for
those with bachelor’s degrees or higher (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). The
unemployment rate for dropouts was 13% compared to 7% for those who completed high school.
Dropouts have poorer health than adults who are not dropouts, and regardless of income, they
make up more of the nation’s institutionalized population, have higher rates of criminal activity,
and have a higher reliance on welfare (Belfield & Levin, 2007). The NCES (2019) also found
that the majority of students in Grades 4 and 8 are below proficient in reading and math. “With
stakes this high, a quality education is no longer a privilege, but a moral responsibility we owe to
every child.” (Buffum et al., 2012, p. xiv)
Students with specific learning disabilities have poorer outcomes than the general
population. Data from the National Center for Learning Disabilities (Horowitz et al., 2017)
showed that 97% of 4th graders with specific learning disabilities performed below proficiency
levels in reading and 91% were below proficient in math. Spurred on by federal legislation in the
United States, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA,
2

2004), schools have implemented a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework as a means of
providing support and providing an alternative means of identifying specific learning disabilities
(Jimerson et al., 2007). Under this reauthorization, a diagnosis of a specific learning disability
can only be made when a student fails to respond to increasingly intensive, evidence-based
interventions (Hagans-Murillo, 2005).
Response to Intervention is about harnessing an organization’s collective knowledge and
skills to ensure that all students have the essential knowledge and skills to succeed at school and
beyond by providing additional time and support in a multi-tiered system (Buffum et al., 2012).
However, the implementation of RTI varies greatly at the state, district, and school levels in the
United States (Powers et al., 2008). This issue with RTI implementation can also be seen in the
organization that is the focus of this study. The Red Dot International School is almost a decade
into RTI implementation, and while some elements of RTI, such as professional learning
communities (PLCs), are present in all grades, RTI implementation varies greatly across the
school, which impacts mastery of essential skills.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Red Dot International School (RDIS), a pseudonym, is an independent, non-profit,
private school in Southeast Asia. It was founded in 1956 with 105 students and has grown to
become one of the world’s largest single-campus preschool–Grade 12 schools. It currently has
over 4,000 students from 66 different nationalities. Passport holders from the United States
represented 54% of the 2020–21 student body. A further 13% also hold a U.S. passport and a
second passport from a nation other than the United States. Student demographic breakdown by
country of passport is India (12%), China (7%), South Korea (6%) and Singapore (5%), with
students from Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong, and other countries
3

making up the rest. The number of students from India and China has risen over the past few
years, while those of other nationalities have stayed relatively stable. Students stay at RDIS for
an average of 4.4 years.
During the 2019–20 school year, RDIS employed 686 employees, which included 27
administrators, 396 teachers, seven professional technical employees and 256 support staff.
United States passport holders comprise 59% of the faculty, with the remaining faculty from
Asia, Australasia, Canada, Europe, South Africa, and South America. Singaporeans comprise
71% of support staff. The average tenure of staff at RDIS is 8.4 years, and that of administrators
is 9.5 years. Five percent of RDIS staff have doctorates, 76% hold master’s degrees and 19%
have bachelor’s degrees.
The school has an early learning center, an elementary school, a middle school, and a
high school. These divisions function somewhat independently. Leaders in central administration
coordinate between the divisions and provide coherence and alignment. A 12-member elected
board is responsible for the school’s vision and mission.
The organization’s mission is to provide all students with an exceptional American
educational experience with a global perspective. The vision of RDIS is that students will
become extraordinary thinkers who are prepared to meet the challenges of a changing world. The
school’s aspiration is that every student is learning at high levels and fully realizing their
potential with every educator and program in which students are enrolled. It also means that
every student will graduate with the knowledge, skills, and disposition needed to succeed in
college and in their lives beyond college. The RDIS has similar excellence-related goals for
teachers, stating that they will refine and grow their professional craft as individuals and
collectively in PLCs. The school currently has over 60 PLCs, over 20 of which are in the
4

elementary division. The school also aims to have systems in place to support students both at
RDIS and beyond and to support teachers in developing their professional practice.
Organizational Performance Goal
The RDIS conducted a cross-divisional program review in the 2020–21 school year for
student support and RTI. The chief recommendation was to adopt a multi-tiered systems of
support (MTSS) model. The MTSS is a more comprehensive umbrella term that includes both
RTI, which is more academic-focused, along with a similar tiered model for behavioral and
emotional support of students.
The goal is that by the end of the 2027 school year, RDIS will improve instruction to
students on an MTSS rubric and develop feedback and accountability systems for teaching and
learning to ensure school-level fidelity of RTI implementation. The National Centre on RTI
Implementation initially developed This rubric in 2011, and it was adapted in 2019 to make it
culturally and linguistically responsive. The rubric aligns with essential RTI components within
an MTSS and includes the infrastructure required for successful RTI implementation. For this
study, only RTI implementation to date was evaluated.
Related Literature
Although tiered systems of support have existed for many years, educators are challenged
to make it work due to a lack of clarity and consistency in their school’s systems and supports
(Braun et al., 2020). Some schools created a one-size-fits-all Tier 2 and 3 reactive model, while
others have focused support efforts on students with the potential to pass state tests and boost the
schools’ adequate yearly progress targets (Weber, 2013). Other schools applied RTI principles to
higher grades under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), but these schools ignore the importance of
early intervention (Buffum et al., 2009). Tools associated with RTI, such as universal screening,
5

progress monitoring and evidence-based interventions, are better researched and plentiful in
early grades (Weber, 2013). The implementation of RTI is exacerbated in international schools
that are not mandated to follow it. Research on how RTI has been implemented in American
international schools is scant, and no data were available regarding how many implement RTI, if
at all.
Despite these challenges, RTI has strong potential as a framework to limit chronic school
academic failure (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005). Its models, when implemented with fidelity, have been
found to decrease the number of students exhibiting severe underachievement, reducing grade
level retentions, referrals for special education and increasing achievement in reading, spelling,
and math (Burns et al., 2005; Jenkins et al., 2004; Torgeson, 2007; VanDerHeyden et al., 2005).
Overall, RTI reduces the risk of disproportionate representation of culturally and
linguistically diverse students being referred or found eligible for special education services
(Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006; Marston et al., 2003). This is important because outcomes for
students with disabilities differ significantly by race and ethnicity. Approximately 35% of
African American, Hispanic, and Native American students with disabilities left high school
without earning a diploma in 2014–15, compared to less than 25% of Asian and White students.
(Horowitz et al., 2017).
Response to Intervention is not without critics, though. The potential value of RTI to
improve learning for students has inspired many educators to try to make it a success, but its
complexity can be challenging, confusing and frustrating (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017). In 2010, the
Institute of Education Sciences commissioned a national evaluation of RTI using implementation
data from 146 study schools and found that many of them were not conducting RTI in a manner
supported by research and policy. Such findings suggest that simpler frameworks may encourage
6

more educators to implement RTI’s most important components with fidelity (Fuchs & Fuchs,
2017).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate where RDIS is with regard to RTI implementation because
although RDIS is well into a decade of RTI implementation, there appears to be a lack of
consistency and clarity on processes for implementation. Little is known directly from RDIS
teachers about their understanding of the key components of RTI, their procedural knowledge of
how to apply RTI in PLCs to meet struggling learners’ needs, their motivation to continue to
work in collaborative teams to support students and organizational factors that support and
impede RTI implementation. Teachers play active roles in reform efforts such as RTI, but their
perspectives are barely considered in discussing the effectiveness of school reform (Shirley &
Hargreaves, 2006). Although schoolwide data were collected in the support services 2020–21
review, evaluating early elementary grade levels allows stakeholders to make decisions and
changes that positively impact student progress at a more granular, local level. Table 1 presents
the organizational mission, performance goal and stakeholder goals.

7

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational mission
The Red Dot International School is committed to providing each student with an exceptional
American educational experience with a global perspective.
Organizational performance goal
By June 2027, the Red Dot International School will promote consistency of high-quality
teaching in every classroom to support the learning needs of each student and streamline its
service delivery of RTI.
Stakeholder 1 goal:
by June 2027, the
Director of
Personalized
Learning will
ensure that all
grade levels at
RDIS will be
secure on every
element of the
CLR-RTI Fidelity
Rubric.
Stakeholder 2 goal:
by June 2026,
100% of homeroom
and learning
support teachers in
RDIS Grades K–2
will implement RTI
with fidelity as
measured on the
CLR-RTI Rubric.

Stakeholder 3 goal:
by June 2025, the
RDIS elementary
school
administrators will
provide
professional
learning and
coaching
opportunities for
100% of homeroom
and support
services teachers
regarding
differentiated Tier
1 instruction and
evidence-based
instruction at a Tier
2 level.
Stakeholder 4 goal:
by June 2024,
elementary learning
support teams in
Grades K–2 at
RDIS will establish
a clear
identification
process for students
who require
support in Tier 2
and Tier 3.

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of high-quality teaching in every classroom to support every student’s needs,
it was important to evaluate where individual grade levels were with regard to RTI
implementation. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study were teachers in Grades K–2,
which includes homeroom and learning support teachers. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by
8

the director of support services, is that 100% of early elementary homeroom and learning support
teachers will implement RTI with fidelity as measured by the RTI fidelity rubric by June 2027.
The stakeholder group was chosen because the challenges of identifying and supporting students
in early elementary grade levels are different from upper grades. Students in these grades are
relatively unknown and come from different school systems. It is often unclear if they are
underachieving because of a lack of quality instruction, their younger age, or learning
disabilities. If MTSS are not in place, students will not get the support they require to learn
essential grade-level standards that allow for future success.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed causes and examining
these systematically to focus on actual or validated causes. While a complete gap analysis would
focus on all stakeholders, the stakeholders of focus in this analysis are Kindergarten (K) to Grade
2 learning support and homeroom teachers. Three questions guided this study:
1. What are learning support and homeroom teachers’ current levels of knowledge and
motivation in implementing an RTI Framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
2. What are the organizational factors that influence the implementation of an RTI
framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
3. What are recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources for the implementation of an RTI framework
with fidelity at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
Methodological Framework
Qualitative data gathering and analysis were conducted to evaluate the stakeholder
group’s current performance in relation to their performance goal in the areas of knowledge,
9

motivation, and organizational factors. The stakeholders’ performance was validated by semi-
structured interviews. A documents analysis reviewed the findings of the RDIS 2012 support
services review. The document analysis was used to triangulate this study’s findings. Research-
based solutions were recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Definitions
For purposes of alignment, the definitions used in this dissertation have been adopted
from the RDIS support services review.
Data: For this inquiry, data is defined as information used to inform instructional practice
and decision making. This includes checks for mastery, formative, summative and standardized
assessments.
Multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): defined as a model for providing instruction and
intervention in general education classrooms. Instruction decisions are based on explicit
screening and assessment data. Research-based interventions and those that are organized along
a tiered continuum that increases in intensity are provided in response to data-based decisions
made by PLCs (Burns et al., 2016).
Progress monitoring: Progress monitoring is the act of assessing progress on a frequent
and consistent basis to determine whether a student is responding to instruction (Silberglitt et al.,
2016).
Tier 1: Tier 1 refers to the core instruction or differentiated intervention classroom
teachers provide to all students.
Tier 2: Tier 2 refers to targeted instruction or intervention which permits increased
practice opportunities for skills development in all areas of core curricular learning. Tier 2
intervention consists of explicit modeling and teaching, greater attention to review, increased
10

teaching for generalization and guided instruction, and multiple opportunities for practice. Tier 2
intervention is provided in addition to Tier 1 instruction and is provided by classroom teachers or
specialists (Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016).
Tier 3: Tier 3 consists of instruction that is customized for students who continue to
struggle despite having received universal (Tier 1) and supplemental (Tier 2) instruction.
Specialists implement instruction at this tier, and progress is monitored more frequently to
facilitate improved responding and instruction appropriately matched to the area(s) of need.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about RTI. The organization’s mission, goals, and
stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis, were introduced. Chapter Two
provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Chapter Three details
the assumed causes and the methodology used to select participants and collect and analyze the
data. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps and recommendations for
an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Schools all over the world engage in raising educational achievement, as the many
reforms in education will testify. One such significant reform is an MTSS called RTI. Chapter
Two begins with what prior research has found about the historical context of RTI and its use as
an alternative to the traditional ability-achievement discrepancy method for diagnosing learning
disabilities. Next, the chapter provides a review of current literature relating to the two most
common RTI models. I will then explore the research behind the essential components of RTI,
what individual tiers mean and what research tells us about the efficacy of RTI and
implementation integrity of RTI. The final part of the chapter will discuss the influences of
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that form the conceptual framework of this
study.
Historical Context of RTI
The seeds of RTI were sown in the 2002 passage of the NCLB. While RTI was not
specifically named in the NCLB, the act placed a strong emphasis on early intervention, high-
quality instruction, and accountability for educational outcomes (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
NCLB required schools to employ highly qualified teachers and all students to meet certain
academic standards (Greenfield et al., 2010).
In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was amended, and RTI
was codified into law through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA, 2004; Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017). It was noteworthy that
IDEIA supported early intervention by screening students for academic and behavioral problems,
monitoring their progress and increasing interventions based on their response to these
interventions (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
12

All 50 states have adopted RTI, which also gained traction because it was seen as equity-
minded reform in light of concerns about the overrepresentation of minorities in special
education (King & Coughlin, 2016; Sabnis et al., 2020). Response to Intervention is now
commonly known as MTSS (Braun et al., 2020), which is an umbrella term that covers both
academic support through RTI and behavioral support through positive behavior intentions and
support (PBIS; August et al., 2018).
There are two dominant RTI discourses with fierce advocates on either side. One set of
scholars sees RTI as a process for determining eligibility for specific learning disability (SLD)
services under special education law (Sabnis et al., 2020). Another set of scholars frames RTI as
whole school reform that belongs to both special education and general education to meet all
students’ needs (Artiles et al., 2010; Sabnis et al., 2020).
RTI as an Alternative Methods of Learning Disability Identification
Prior to the advent of RTI, practitioners were getting increasingly vocal about criticisms
of the discrepancy model of learning disability (Fuchs et al., 2003; Gresham, 2007; MacMillan et
al., 1998; Viadero, 1991; Ysseldyke et al., 1983). In this discrepancy model, a diagnosis of SLD
requires a gap between ability and achievement. Criticisms of this discrepancy model had much
to do with increased identification and escalating special education costs. Between 1977 and
1994, since the discrepancy method was adopted, students classified as learning disabled grew
from 22% to 46% of all special-needs children in the United States. Students with disabilities
increased from 3.7 million to 5.3 million despite public school enrollment staying mostly
constant. (Hanushek et al., 2002). Twenty percent of the increase in spending per student came
from special education, and school boards and educational stakeholders began calling for
downsizing the number of students referred (Fuchs et al., 2003; Viadero, 1991). Other criticisms
13

of the discrepancy model came from inconsistencies in how the intellectual quotient (IQ)-
achievement discrepancy was operationalized in different school districts and states (MacMillan
et al., 1998). This inconsistency, along with cases of non-compliance, contributed to the idea that
the SLD designation was arbitrary (Fuchs et al., 2003; Ysseldyke et al., 1983).
There were also equity issues with the discrepancy model. Services were unfairly
withheld from underperforming students from low-income families and with low IQs who did
not qualify for special education (Fuchs et al., 2003). Critics claimed that IQ tests were a poor
index of intelligence and contributed to a wait-to-fail model where services were delayed until
students’ achievement dropped enough to be sufficiently below their IQ scores (Fuchs & Fuchs,
2005; Fuchs et al., 2003). The discrepancy model conformed to attribution bias and blamed
school failure on causes central to the individual rather than ecological factors like instruction,
classroom management or curriculum (Sabnis et al., 2020).
Response to Intervention challenged the traditional discrepancy model of the SLD
diagnosis that used an IQ achievement discrepancy to diagnose learning difficulties. Proponents
of RTI claimed that the tiered levels of support in RTI improved a learning disability (LD)
diagnosis by ruling out contextual factors (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Its proponents believe that
RTI solves many problems inherent in the discrepancy model because it provides help more
quickly to greater numbers of students and distinguishes the truly disabled from those with
inadequate instruction by providing high-quality interventions leading to lowered special
education costs. Furthermore, it is not contingent on performance on an IQ test, can be non-
categorical in some RTI models and thus avoids labeling students (Fuchs et al., 2003). However,
not all researchers agree with using RTI as a means of identifying students. While RTI
proponents support getting rid of the ability-achievement discrepancy in LD diagnosis, some
14

researchers have suggested a more prudent approach and have called for more research around
RTI and increased fidelity in RTI practice (Fuchs et al., 2003)
RTI Models
Response to Intervention models are multi-tiered service delivery systems with
interventions that start in general education and increase in intensity depending on how students
progress and which may or may not end in a special education placement. Barnes and Harlacher
(2008) used the term “protocol” to refer to schools’ approach to determining what resources and
levels of interventions students need. The two best-known RTI models/protocols are the
problem-solving approach and the standard-protocol approach. There are at least two historical
origins to these two models. (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Practitioners and school psychologists
prefer the problem-solving approach, and researchers and early reading interventionists prefer
the standard protocol approach (Fuchs et al., 2003). The problem-solving model has been more
widely studied.
Problem-Solving Approach
This approach is influenced by schoolwide approaches to prevent behavior problems
(Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). For each child, interventions and assessments are personalized.
Typically, in such models, the teacher collaborates with a shared decision-making team to
identify and analyze behavior and academic problems (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). They then
select, implement, monitor progress, and modify interventions based on progress and plan future
steps, including referrals to special education (Grimes, 2002). Pre-referral intervention reduces
inappropriate special education referrals and strengthens the teacher’s capacity to intervene to
support a greater range of children (Fuchs et al., 2003). There are two versions: one follows
behavior consultations in problem solving, and the other gives attention to interpersonal
15

relationships and teamwork (Fuchs et al., 2003). Many schools that use the problem-solving
approach meld the two. The strength of this approach is individualization. It aligns well with
current education beliefs around collaboration, choice in decision making from those doing the
work, and the notion of egalitarianism. However, a drawback is that it requires considerable
expertise among practitioners in assessments and intervention (Fuchs et al., 2003). Widely
studied models are Ohio’s Intervention Based Assessment; Pennsylvania’s Instructional Support
Teams, Heartland; and the Minneapolis Public Schools (Fuchs et al., 2003). However, all four
models have shown insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of RTI (Fuchs et al., 2003).
Standard Protocol Approach
This approach comes out of research on preventing reading difficulties in children.
Practitioners typically use standard protocols to deliver interventions that increase in intensity
depending on the child’s response (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). The work of Vellutino et al.
(1996) exemplifies this approach and demonstrates its effectiveness in remediating reading in
first graders. Vellutino et al. (1996) used this approach of one-on-one tutoring of weak readers
by trained teachers in phonemic awareness, decoding, sight word practice and text reading. Two-
thirds of readers caught up to peers after one semester, and the researchers suggested that these
were disabled due to inadequate instruction (Vellutino et al., 1996). However, the remaining one-
third were identified as challenging to remediate. In early years, as long as the selected approach
used recommendations of the five essential components of reading stated in the National
Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary), it was
likely to meet the needs of most students who struggle with reading acquisition.
The advantages of the standard protocol approach are that it seems to facilitate greater
quality control and seems to have success in the identification of students who need
16

individualized specialized services. Challenges with this approach are that one-on-one tutoring is
expensive for schools, which makes large-scale implementation difficult, and that it appears less
sensitive to individual differences. (Fuchs et al., 2003). As the same empirically validated
treatment is given to all students with similar problems in a given domain, it is easier to train
practitioners and assess the accuracy of implementation. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) stated that they
prefer the standard tutoring protocol over the problem-solving approach as scientific evidence
supports standard tutoring more strongly. Some schools use a combined protocol that
incorporates features of both the standard and problem-solving protocols (Barnes & Harlacher,
2008). Both the problem-solving approach and the standard-protocol approach have certain
essential components of RTI in common.
Essential Components of RTI
Several researchers have tried to define the essential components of RTI models, and
while there are overlaps, there is a lack of consensus on the essential components of RTI.
Fletcher and Vaughn (2009) stated that RTI models involve screening all students for academic
and behavior problems, monitoring the progress of children at risk for difficulties & provide
increasingly intense interventions based on the response to progress monitoring. Fuchs et al.
(2003) stated that RTI models should involve group problem solving, close monitoring of student
progress, implementation of research-based interventions and consideration for special education
only after students do not respond adequately to interventions. Barnes and Harlacher (2008)
make a distinction between RTI principles (the why) and RTI features (the how). They describe
the principles as a proactive approach, instructional match, problem-solving orientation, data-
based decisions, effective practices and a systems-level approach. According to them, the
features of RTI include multiple tiers leading to a special education referral, assessment system,
17

protocol (standard/problem solving/combined), and evidence-based interventions with
parameters to judge progress. Similarly, Noltemeyer et al. (2014) examined studies and texts and
found the following six components of RTI: assessment, data-based decision making, high-
quality research-based interventions, treatment integrity, professional development and
administrative leadership and schoolwide support.
Research by the Center on Response to Intervention (CRTI, 2014) distilled down the
following five essential RTI components:
• Assessments
• Data-based decision making
• Multi-level instruction
• Infrastructure and Supporting Mechanisms
• Fidelity and Evaluation
In recent years, the term MTSS has become more popular and adopted by many
international schools (Kusama-Powell, 2020). At RDIS, the term RTI is currently much more
commonly known. However, it is important to understand the difference between these terms
because MTSS is frequently interchanged with RTI and PBIS, which are multi-tiered
frameworks used to meet students’ academic needs and behavioral needs, respectively. The
MTSS is usually conceptualized as broader than RTI or PBIS (Wexler, 2018). In other words, a
core difference between RTI and MTSS is that while both are multi-level prevention systems to
maximize student achievement, MTSS also uses these multi-tiers to support students’ social-
emotional and behavior needs (Schumann et al., 2020). Under MTSS, the core components have
been further revised into four essential components: data-based decision making at the core,
18

which supports the other three essential components, multi-level prevention system, and progress
monitoring (Schumann et al., 2020).
Buffum et al. (2012) described many similar essential components but categorized them
as the four Cs that they describe as the guiding principles of RTI. The four Cs are collective
responsibility, concentrated instruction, convergent assessments, and certain access.
Collective Responsibility
This is a shared belief that the primary responsibility of each member of the organization
is to ensure high levels of learning for every child. This includes any student who will be
expected to live as a financially independent adult in the future. Building a school leadership
team to guide the change process in RTI is essential, and this team needs to provide a compelling
reason change is necessary and build a shared vision. The leadership team also needs to create a
feasible plan, build consensus, confront resisters, and establish mutual professional
accountability (Buffum et al., 2012). Cultural changes (shifts in values, norms, assumptions,
schedules, and collective organizational beliefs) must come before technical changes to
schedules, instructional materials, and policies (Muhammad & DuFour, 2009), so it is essential
that teachers understand and buy into the rationale for RTI.
Building structures for collaboration can be done through collaborative teacher teams
(PLCs), the school leadership team (broader macro view), and a school intervention team (micro
view on specific students). These teams need to have time for collaboration, team norms and
simple effective forms to guide their work. (Buffum et al., 2012).
Concentrated Instruction
Buffum et al. (2012) described this as a systematic process where teams identify essential
knowledge and skills that all students must master to learn at high levels, determined by the
19

specific learning needs of each child to get there. Once teacher teams determine essential
knowledge and skills, they plan how and when the team will provide extra time and support to
those who need it through multi-tiered interventions and create formative assessments to monitor
how well the core program works for each student.
Convergent Assessments
This is a process of collectively analyzing assessment data to determine each student’s
needs and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions that students receive. This includes
universal screening of all students, using data points in decision making, matching intervention
to needs and ongoing and frequent progress monitoring. Buffum et al. (2012) also recommended
a pre-assessment of requisite essential skills before beginning a unit to build skills with students
before the unit begins.
Certain Access
Buffum et al. (2012) described this as a systematic process that guarantees that every
student will receive the time and support needed to learn at high levels. This involves the
creation of a tiered, systematic intervention program where every child has access to the tier
below. Clear data-based decisions are made for movement between tiers. Buffum et al. (2012)
also stated that a broad base of stakeholders should be involved in decisions at all tiers.
Response to Intervention Tiers
The multi-tiered approach, central to RTI, has its origins in prevention science literature
(Kratochwill et al., 2007), and the most commonly used pyramid model of RTI has three tiers
(Bender, 2009; Buffum et al., 2012). However, some states and school districts have
implemented multi-tier intervention systems with more than three tiers (Gersten et al., 2009).
Idaho’s Results Based RTI model has four tiers, with the fourth being special education
20

(Callender, 2007). Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) initially supported a simpler three-tier model, with
the third tier being special education, but in later years, Fuchs and Fuchs (2017) advocated for
simplifying it further into two tiers, that of general education and special education. States have
operationalized the tiers differently, but, in all, the focus is on primary, secondary, or tertiary
interventions that increase in intensity (Kratochwill et al., 2007). The movement through the tiers
based on student progress provides the decision-making framework of RTI (Kratochwill et al.,
2007).
Tier 1: Primary Level Instruction
Tier 1 is the general education tier that represents quality core instruction available to all
students (Bender, 2009; Burns, 2010). Tier 1 typically refers to classroom instruction, where the
general education teacher is the primary facilitator. The main purpose of Tier 1 is to be proactive
and preventative (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Scientific, research-based Tier 1 instruction
eliminates inadequate instruction as a reason for inadequate progress in an LD diagnosis (Yell &
Drasgow, 2007). Vaughn et al. (2009) described three elements to Tier 1:
• a core curriculum based on scientifically validated research
• universal screening and benchmark testing of students at least three times a year (Fall,
Winter & Spring) to determine instructional needs
• ongoing teacher professional development to provide teachers with necessary tools
Tier 1 should adequately meet most students’ needs, about 75% to 80% of students. If
more than 20%–25% of students require additional support, Tier 1 needs strengthening (Burns,
2010). Collaborative teacher teams should define the knowledge and skills that all students must
master in Tier 1, plan when and how the teams will provide support to those who need it and
21

create common formative assessments to monitor how well the core instructional program is
working (Buffum et al., 2012)
The Center on Response to Intervention (2014), in its RTI fidelity rubric, articulated that
in addition to universal screening of all students and progress monitoring, Tier 1 should include
research-based core curriculum materials. There should be a clear process of articulation of
teaching and learning from one grade to another. Students in the same grade should have
consistent learning experiences when different teachers teach the same subject. Differentiated
instruction should consider student assessment data, readiness, culture, and language. The core
curriculum in reading and math should be aligned to standards, and teachers should align
instruction to those standards. There should also be consistent programs and activities to
augment the curriculum for those students who have met or exceeded standards.
Tier 2: Secondary Level Instruction
Tier 2 interventions are more intense than Tier 1. The general goal is to strengthen
student academic performance to support their success in Tier 1. Tier 2 may supplement or
replace parts of Tier 1 instruction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017). The Center on Response to
Intervention (2014), in its RTI fidelity rubric, stated that Tier 2 should use evidence-based
interventions for secondary instruction. Tier 2 interventions should be well aligned, complement
core instruction, and incorporate foundational skills. Interventions should be standardized. They
should be led by staff trained to implement these interventions with fidelity. Tier 2 interventions
should take place in small groups optimized for the age of students and are always given in
addition to Tier 1 instruction and not to replace Tier 1.
Recommendations about group size and instructional time for Tier 2 interventions are
fairly consistent in the literature. Tier 2 interventions should be given to no more than 20% of
22

students who need it beyond Tier 1 instruction. These should be delivered in small groups for 20
to 30 minutes daily (Burns, 2010). Some researchers are more specific on group size and timings.
Fletcher and Vaughn (2009) stated that Tier 2 secondary intervention should take place in groups
of 3-5 students for 20–40 minutes daily. This is supported by the Institute of Education Science
panel (Gersten et al., 2009), which also recommends that Tier 2 be implemented 3 to 5 times per
week for 20–40 minutes, should include systematic and explicit instruction and focus on the
specific skills that the student might need. In a meta-analysis, Elbaum et al. (2000) found
moderate to strong effects for students who received one-to-one instruction in reading by college
students. Significantly they also found that when highly qualified staff provide well-designed
interventions, the academic benefits are the same whether students are taught individually or in
small groups of 2-6 students. Gersten et al. (2009) also found strong effects for small-group
supplemental interventions. Bender (2009) found that Tier 2 interventions should meet about
15% of students’ needs and recommended that classroom teachers, coaches or other educators
could deliver these interventions.
Tier 3: Intensive Individualized Interventions
According to Fletcher and Vaughn (2009), if a child does not make progress with Tier 2
intervention, then Tier 3 support may be considered. Tier 3 refers to more intensive tertiary
intervention that may involve smaller groups, increased time in support (45–60 minutes daily)
and a more specialized teacher. Progress is monitored weekly or bi-weekly. Fuchs and Deshler
(2007) found that based on a normal distribution, the percentage of students who do not show
adequate progress in Tier 2 and who should be moved to Tier 3 should fall between 2% and 7%
of the population. Burns (2010) stated that no more than 5% of students should require Tier 3
support in a school that is properly implementing Tier 1 and Tier 2 services. He stated that these
23

do not need to be delivered one-to-one, but they must be specific to individual students’ needs. In
most cases, Tier 3 interventions are led by someone other than the general education teacher
under the guidance of the student support team (Bender, 2009).
The potential intervention components in Tier 3, according to Burns and Gibbons (2008),
are that it is (a) highly targeted, (b) provides an appropriate level of challenge for the
individualized student, (c) explicitly teaches a specific skill (d) allows many opportunities to
respond (e) provides immediate corrective feedback for an individual student. The Center on
Response to Intervention (2014), in its RTI fidelity rubric, articulated that Tier 3 interventions
should be provided to students who are significantly below grade level. The intensive
interventions should be more intensive than secondary interventions, adapted to individual
student needs in a number of ways and change based iteratively based on data. Instructional
characteristics are that interventions are individualized, led by experienced, well-trained staff and
group size is optimal based on student age and needs. Decisions about student participation in
Tier 1/2 are made on a case-by-case basis according to student need, and intensive interventions
address the general education curriculum appropriately for students.
RTI Efficacy
Randomized studies in RTI are thin on the ground. Burns (2010) provided some reasons
for this. The author found that while school districts have reported impressive results using RTI
over time, RTI being a schoolwide initiative has made randomized studies impossible due to the
ethical challenges involved in withholding interventions from a control group (Burns, 2010).
Burns suggested that in this situation, it makes more sense to study components of RTI, the sum
of the parts, to evaluate the whole. Other researchers also support studying the efficacy of
components of RTI (Gansle & Noell, 2007; Kovaleski, 2007)
24

Several researchers have found that RTI increases academic outcomes in literacy for
elementary school students (Case et al., 2014; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Sharp et al., 2016; Vaughn
et al., 2009). Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) used case studies to demonstrate that first-grade students
demonstrated growth on measures of reading using a standard protocol approach that involved
screening and progress monitoring with word identification fluency (curriculum-based
measurement), a Tier 1 validated reading curriculum and research-backed tutoring with trained
paraprofessionals at Tier 2. They found that this approach was effective in identifying non-
responders at Tier 2, who were then referred to special education. Sharp et al. (2016) studied the
relationship between RTI implementation integrity and student outcomes in reading and writing
using data from 43 elementary schools. Findings were that data-based decision making and Tier
3 implementation integrity predicted student reading outcomes when controlling for
demographic predictors such as economic disadvantage, minority status and teacher quality,
among others.
Some researchers found that responders to intervention in early grades continued to do
better than non-responders. Case et al. (2014) did a randomized longitudinal control study of first
graders, with the intervention group receiving three 40-minute sessions weekly for 12 weeks,
targeted intervention in key reading components. At the end of first grade, some positive effects
of the intervention were seen in decodable word reading fluency, but the findings were not robust
for all measures. Longitudinal assessments showed no difference by group by the end of second
grade. However, responders in first grade continued to strongly outperform non-responders when
they reached second grade. Vaughn et al. (2009) similarly demonstrated that relative to high
responders, low responders to intervention in grade 1 made significant progress in word reading
and text comprehension when given intensive interventions in Grade 2.
25

Large-scale models of RTI have also been studied to examine their efficacy, with
improved student outcomes and reduced special education referrals seen as chief outcomes
(Bollman et al., 2007; Burns et al., 2005; Callender, 2007; McNamara & Hollinger, 2003). Burns
et al. (2005), in their meta-analysis of RTI research, examined four large-scale RTI models and
found that both field-based and university-based RTI models led to strong effects. Stronger
effects were seen for field-based models, probably due to improvements and refinements over
the years in these settings. Furthermore, RTI improved student outcomes, and studies showed
large reductions in special education referrals.
Ohio and Minnesota are known for their well-known large-scale problem-solving RTI
models. McNamara and Hollinger (2003) studied a sample of schools in Ohio following
Intervention Based Assessment (IBA). The IBA required teams to follow interventions of
increasing sophistication until they found interventions that work using curriculum-based
measures. This approach was found to decrease inappropriate referrals to special education (i.e.,
those that result in ineligibility decisions). However, using this model negatively influenced the
implementation delivered exclusively in general education classrooms. A factor that influenced
this was general education teachers’ resistance owing to a lack of skills, knowledge and
ownership of the intervention process, inadequate resources to maintain intervention in general
education, institutional barriers, and a belief that special education could solve children’s
problems more effectively. Bollman et al. (2007) studied 10 years of problem-solving RTI
implementation in St. Croix, Minnesota and found that students showed a steady increase in
performance on curriculum-based measures of reading and, more recently, math. The LD referral
rate in this district dropped by over 40% in the last decade and is currently lower than the state
average. This RTI model uses three critical elements of RTI: frequent measurement using CBM,
26

evidence-based instruction in reading and a schoolwide organization to ensure the most effective
instruction for students, which includes continuous measurement, grade-level team meetings,
flexible groupings, grade-level scheduling, and concentrated resources.
Two other well-known large-scale RTI models were based in Idaho and Montana.
Callender (2007) studied Idaho’s RTI results-based model implemented in K–3 schools with
1,400 students. This model combines both problem-solving and standard-protocol approaches.
The model has certain key practices such as addressing systemic issues first (using non-research-
based programs, lack of effective interventions, no progress monitoring), using problem-solving
teams, parental involvement, functional assessments used to identify specific skills deficits,
outcome-oriented and research-based interventions, progress monitoring, systemic data-based
decision making and dual discrepancy eligibility for special education (large differences from
peers and insufficient response to interventions). Results from the Idaho State Department of
Education found a 3% decrease in special education placements in RTI schools. They also found
that students with intervention plans developed through RTI outperformed students on reading
compared to students on intervention plans developed in non-RTI schools. Mahdavi and Beebe-
Frankenberger (2009), in their study of the Montana RTI project, examined benchmark progress
of students from two elementary schools. They found that between 2006–2008, both schools
increased the percentage of students in Tier 1 (core classrooms). They also found that RTI
decreased the percentage of students in Tier 2 (strategic interventions) and Tier 3 (intensive
interventions).
Mixed results were found in studies that examined RTI’s influence on decreasing special
education referrals. Most studies found that RTI decreased special education referrals (Bollman
et al., 2007; Burns et al., 2005; Callender, 2007; McNamara & Hollinger, 2003; VanDerHeyden
27

et al., 2007). VanDerHeyden et al. (2007) evaluated an evaluation of an RTI model: STEEP.
Their study found that the RTI model led to more accurate identification of students for special
education eligibility, reduced special education referrals and costs, and provided evidence that it
could eliminate the disproportionate rate of special education referrals by gender and ethnicity
(VanDerHeyden et al., 2007). Dexter et al. (2008), while reviewing studies of RTI
implementation in rural school districts between 1999–2000, found that tiered early intervention
approaches models improved reading and math student achievement for at-risk students. While
results vary, 40% to 60% of students struggling with reading or math will have those issues
eliminated with Tier 2 supplemental interventions. However, the studies had weak research
designs and procedures, which called into question if gains could be attributed to RTI. They
found mixed results on RTI’s impact on special education placement rates, with studies reporting
a range from no changes to a 7% decrease in placements.
Implementation Integrity of RTI
Treatment integrity, treatment fidelity, implementation integrity, and fidelity of
implementation are all terms used interchangeably in the literature. This multiplicity of terms
may have impeded consensus building on key elements of what constitutes integrity of
implementation of a model (Schulte et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis of over 500 quantitative
studies, Durlak and DuPre (2008) found that the implementation level had a significant influence
on outcomes. Good implementation increases the chances of program success and leads to
stronger benefits for participants. They discussed an important tension between fidelity in
implementation and the benefits of adaptation. Their analysis of studies suggests that better
implementations occur when providers can adapt programs to make them relevant in their own
contexts. They recommended that it is essential to specify theoretically important components of
28

interventions and determine how well these specific components are delivered or altered. Some
researchers believe that schools should be free to develop RTI processes and procedures that
work for them based on cultures, resources and needs (Buffum, 2020; Gresham, 2004). Mahdavi
and Beebe-Frankenberger (2009), in their study of the Montana RTI project, showed that for
sustainability over time, RTI has a greater likelihood of success if they consider social validity.
Social validity means that those responsible for implementation should consider the school’s
mission, vision, and values. Those leading RTI implementation should make decisions about RTI
at a local level, creating RTI systems that are unique to their schools. It seems that while it is
important to consider critical elements of RTI implementation and assess them using
scientifically valid and reliable tools, it is also important to acknowledge that local adaptations
are expected and might be beneficial.
Implementation integrity describes the degree to which steps or activities needed to put a
system or program into place are operationalized and carried out (Sharp et al., 2016). From data
collected from 64 principals and school psychologists in 43 elementary schools, they found that
data-based decision making and the degree of Tier 3 implementation fidelity significantly
predicted reading performance when demographic factors were controlled. Similarly, Dane and
Schneider (1998) described program integrity as the degree to which programs were
implemented as planned. They reviewed 162 outcome studies between 1980 and 11994 and
discovered five aspects to consider in program integrity validation. These can also be applied to
RTI:
• Adherence or the extent to which the innovation corresponds to the intended program
(also known as fidelity, integrity, faithful replication).
29

• Exposure: How much of the program has been delivered (also known as dosage,
quantity, and intervention strength), like the number of sessions, length of sessions
and frequency of sessions.
• Quality or how well the different program components have been delivered. These
relate to implementer enthusiasm, estimates of the effectiveness of the program,
leader preparedness and leader attitudes.
• Participant responsiveness: Degree to which the program holds the interests of
participants and levels of participation and enthusiasm.
• Program differentiation or the extent to which the program’s theory and practices can
be differentiated from other programs (uniqueness).
Several barriers have been found in the literature that impact the implementation of RTI
with integrity. A major barrier to implementing RTI with integrity is that RTI models/protocols,
policies and procedures vary greatly by school district, state and across the United States. This is
partly because IDEIA (2004) regulations allow states and educational organizations to develop
their own models of interventions that increase in intensity to meet student needs. Some
researchers have noted the lack of empirical instruments to measure RTI intervention outcomes
(Gansle & Noell, 2007; Kovaleski, 2007). Gansle and Noell (2007) referred to the
implementation of interventions as “treatment plan implementation” or TPI. They suggested that
although it seems intuitive that TPI is linked to student outcomes, studies on the relationship
between TPI and RTI intervention outcomes are insufficient and do not allow for solid
conclusions or a synthesis of research. Furthermore, they conclude that because schools have
limited time and financial resources, it is important to identify the treatment components that
have been empirically found to contribute to student success and assess their implementation.
30

A few researchers have called for developing instruments to measure the effectiveness of
RTI models. Kovaleski (2007) stated that in addition to measuring the efficacy of individual
components, research is needed to examine how effective the entire RTI model is in producing
positive outcomes when implemented with fidelity. Kovaleski pointed to the lack of empirically
developed instruments to assess RTI implementation and suggested that there is a need for such
instruments. Noltemeyer et al. (2014) developed an instrument called RTI Implementation Scale
for Reading (RTIS-R) and found that it could be used reliably to assess RTI implementation in
reading at all three tiers. They suggest that if a school wants to strengthen Tier 1, then items
related to Tier 1 should be prioritized to help leadership teams become more intentional about
implementation (Noltemeyer et al., 2014). They further suggest that schools beginning RTI
implementation should focus on easier-to-implement components like screening and progress
monitoring procedures before focusing on treatment integrity which is harder to implement
(Noltemeyer et al., 2014). However, since the study was conducted in a small midwestern
school, the instrument needs to be tested in more diverse settings.
Teacher Perceptions of RTI
It is essential to examine teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and challenges to build
interventions and support for RTI sustainability (Werts et al., 2009). Castro-Villarreal et al.
(2014) explored teacher perceptions and attitudes toward RTI. Four themes emerged: teacher
understanding of RTI, teacher perceptions of barriers to RTI in their schools, teacher suggestions
to improve RTI and teacher suggestions to improve RTI in their schools. Most teachers were
unable to define RTI and showed a lack of knowledge of the critical core component and purpose
of RTI. In terms of barriers, the most common were those related to lack of adequate training,
time taken, lack of resources and staff support, understanding of the RTI process, and the amount
31

of paperwork. Teachers’ suggestions to improve RTI related to providing more training, the need
for staff and intervention resources, streamlining the process, better communication between
administrators and staff and more time to implement. To improve paperwork, teachers suggested
streamlining it and using an electronic data system.
Greenfield et al. (2010) conducted a qualitative analysis of teacher perceptions of the RTI
reform process in an urban elementary school. Teachers identified several positive outcomes like
using data to inform instruction, use of progress monitoring to measure effectiveness and
improved understanding of when to refer English language learners to special education.
Teachers felt that positive shifts were occurring in the culture of the school. Greenfield et al.
(2010) concluded that teacher perceptions are vital in understanding and planning for RTI and
that it was important to plan for teacher variability in knowledge and understanding during a
change process. They recommended that schools review short-term and long-term goals with the
entire school community and establish an RTI task force to develop an implementation plan.
Werts et al. (2009), in their study of special education directors, found that while directors have
information on RTI as a means of identifying students with disabilities, there was a lack of
consensus on procedural steps for implementing RTI. Similarly, there was confusion regarding
decisions on using curriculum based on scientific evidence. There was variability in the amount
of RTI training received, with the training focused more on what RTI is than how to implement
it.
Conceptual Framework
The problem of practice described in Chapter One is improving the implementation of
RTI at the early elementary level. One way to do so is to identify performance gaps that prevent
teachers and PLCs from implementing RTI with fidelity. Performance gaps can be analyzed by
32

examining people’s knowledge and skills and their motivation in implementing the goal and by
examining organizational barriers, such as a lack of resources or processes that may prevent the
goal from being achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework is thus a
problem-solving process used to analyze stakeholder performance within an organization. It
provides a systematic way to clarify stakeholder and organizational goals, assess performance or
achievement of the goals, and describe the gaps in stakeholder performance with regard to the
goals in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors. This is also
known as a gap analysis.
Clark and Estes (2008) noted that while identifying goals is an essential part of a gap
analysis, goals by themselves are insufficient to close performance gaps. Identifying KMO
influences is key in examining performance gaps. Human causes of errors need to be determined
through assessment tools such as surveys, focus groups, questionnaires, and interviews. Clark
and Estes cautioned against using performance consultants who may impose personal biases and
perspectives about problems and solutions that may lead to inappropriate solutions. They
strongly recommended validating causes through employees of the organization (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
To meet organizational goals, stakeholders must understand the types of knowledge
required to meet them (Rueda, 2011). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identify four main types
of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. While there is a plethora of
research on what RTI is, there are limited studies on teacher knowledge about RTI (Al Otaiba et
al., 2019).
33

Declarative Factual Knowledge Influences
Declarative factual knowledge refers to knowledge of basic facts, information and
terminology related to a topic. It refers to basic and concrete knowledge (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Teachers need to know the essential components of RTI
(Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014) so that they can enact and improve it. Castro-Villarreal et al.
(2014) found that even veteran teachers failed to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the
important components of RTI systems. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) operationalized these essential
RTI components as multi-tiers, prevention/early intervention, universal screening, identifying at-
risk/need-based/struggling students, evidence-based interventions/instruction, progress
monitoring and problem solving.
Conceptual Knowledge Influences
Conceptual knowledge is knowledge of domains, categories, theories, principles, and
general ideas of a specific area (Rueda, 2011). It describes more complex ideas, theories, or
mental models (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). To enact RTI, teachers need to understand why
they are doing RTI or the purpose of RTI (Al Otaiba et al., 2019; Barnes & Harlacher, 2008;
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014). Understanding the rationale behind RTI or the why behind RTI is
as essential to implementation as learning how to do RTI (Ikeda et al., 2002).
Researchers have also noted that teachers must understand RTI’s multiple tiers and their
organization's instructional intervention model (Wilcox et al., 2013). While multiple tiers are an
essential feature of RTI (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008), states/districts and schools vary in the
number of tiers, so teachers need to understand what the tiers mean in their specific contexts and
their roles in each tier (Wilcox et al., 2013). Teachers need to identify which tier would be most
34

beneficial for students given a range of scenarios of students with varied abilities (Al Otaiba et
al., 2019).
Procedural Knowledge Influences
Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do something (Rueda, 2011). It is
knowledge of the skills and procedures involved in the task, including techniques, methods, and
necessary steps (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Much of the procedural knowledge influences in
the literature relate to teachers working collaboratively in PLCs. Buffum et al. (2012)
categorically emphasize that only within the structure of PLCs can schools successfully
implement RTI.
DuFour et al. (2016) stated that teachers in a PLC need to clarify exactly what each
student must learn and the sequencing and pacing of this content. Buffum et al. (2012) described
a process PLCs could use to identify essential knowledge and skills that all students must master
in Tier 1 using three criteria: endurance, leverage, and readiness (Buffum et al., 2012; DuFour et
al., 2016). Teachers need to know how to differentiate the core curriculum to meet all students’
needs (Wilcox et al., 2013). Teacher teams must know how to assess student learning and
monitor how well the core instructional program works. Teachers need to know how to interpret
assessments such as universal screeners and benchmark assessments to identify struggling
learners and then create or use scientifically validated interventions/instruction to help struggling
students develop those essential skills and knowledge (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008; Buffum et al.,
2012; DuFour et al., 2016; Wexler, 2018). Teams need to figure out when and how to provide
support to those who need it (Buffum et al., 2012). They need to know how to monitor struggling
students’ progress and change instruction when students are not making progress (Al Otaiba et
al., 2019; Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014; DuFour et al., 2016)
35

Metacognitive Knowledge Influences
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of one’s cognitive processes. It refers to the
ability to reflect on and adjust skills and includes strategies, planning one’s approach and
deciding on progress (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Teachers in a PLC need to reflect on their
beliefs around teaching and learning, particularly for students who are marginalized and over-
represented in special education (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008; Leaver, 2012; Wilcox et al., 2013).
Implementing RTI involves a cultural shift for teachers from thinking about what is wrong with a
student to assuming that we are not teaching this student correctly (Buffum et al., 2012. p. 5).
Less focus is placed on student characteristics, and a greater focus is placed on instruction
(Barnes & Harlacher, 2008). Teachers need to believe that all students can learn at high levels
(Buffum et al., 2012).
The International Reading Association formed a commission in 2010 to articulate a
conceptual framework for RTI. Dynamic, positive, and productive collaboration was adopted as
one of the six guiding principles of RT (Wilcox et al., 2013). Buffum et al. (2012) described this
orientation as collective responsibility or a shared belief that it is the responsibility of every
member of the organization to ensure that students learn at high levels. Since RTI involves
working in collaborative teams, teachers need to reflect on the extent to which they have worked
collaboratively with general and special education colleagues in their PLC (Castro-Villarreal et
al., 2014; Wilcox et al., 2013). Because RTI is an iterative process, teachers need to also reflect
on how they could improve the RTI processes in their contexts (Buffum et al., 2012; Castro-
Villarreal et al., 2014). Table 2 summarizes the assumed knowledge influences on stakeholders’
ability to achieve the performance goal.

36

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Declarative factual (terms, facts, concepts)
Teachers should be able to name the essential
components of RTI.
Al Otaiba et al., 2019
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Declarative conceptual (categories, process models, principles, relationships)
Teachers should understand the rationale
behind RTI.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Ikeda et al., 2002
NASDSE, 2006
Al Otaiba et al., 2019
Teachers need to understand the multiple
tiers of RTI, their roles in each tier in
their context and which tier is best suited to
their students’ needs.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Procedural
Teachers in a PLC need to clarify exactly
what each student must learn, the
sequencing and pacing of this content, and
how they will assess this learning.
Buffum et al., 2012
DuFour et al., 2016
Teachers need to know how to differentiate
core curriculum to meet the needs of
students.
Barnes & Burchard, 2011
Wilcox et al., 2013
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
develop strategies and ideas that build on
strengths and address weaknesses in
learning. Teachers must learn how to
implement empirically validated
instruction and interventions.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Buffum et al., 2012
DuFour et al., 2016
Wexler, 2018
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
identify which students need help relative
to peers or benchmark assessments.
Buffum et al., 2012
DuFour et al., 2016
Al Otaiba et al., 2019
37

Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
interpret assessment data to change
instruction. They need to know if
interventions are working-how to progress
monitor students.
Al Otaiba et al., 2019
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
DuFour et al., 2016
Metacognitive
Teachers need to reflect on their beliefs and
attitudes around RTI and student learning.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Leaver, 2012
Teachers need to reflect on the extent to
which they worked collaboratively with
other teachers to support student learning.
Buffum et al., 2012
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Wilcox et al., 2013

Motivation Influences
Motivation is essential to achievement (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) described
three facets of motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when
the intention to pursue a goal is replaced by action (Clark & Estes, 2008). It also refers to
choosing one activity over another (Rueda, 2011). Persistence is when people choose to continue
with a goal despite distractions or competing goals. This can also be described as commitment.
Mental effort is when people work harder to develop novel solutions. Motivation is cultural in
the sense that people develop motivational beliefs from those they interact with, so these are
often context-specific (Rueda, 2011). This is particularly pertinent when teachers work in
collaborative teams like PLCs. Rueda (2011) stated that motivational dimensions are frequently
not systematically considered in performance problems in schools. There are several motivation
variables, such as self-efficacy/competence beliefs, attribution/control beliefs, task value, goal
orientation, and affect (Rueda, 2011).

38

Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy pertains to a learner’s positive expectation of success. It is defined as
“People’s judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required
to attain designated levels of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). It is the belief about what
one is capable of doing and is different from knowing what to do (Schunk, 2019). Teacher self-
efficacy refers to teachers’ belief that they can help students learn (Schunk & DiBenedetto,
2016). Teacher self-efficacy is important for motivation, specifically in teaching. Teachers with
low self-efficacy for teaching tend to avoid tasks they do not think they can accomplish, while
those with high teacher self-efficacy are willing to take on teaching challenges. Collective self-
efficacy is the perception of the capability of the group to produce outcomes (Schunk, 2019)
which is pertinent in the case of PLCS who collectively implement RTI. Teacher self-efficacy is
a significant predictor of student achievement, and teachers with high self-efficacy are far more
likely to persevere with students with learning problems and address student needs (Schunk,
2019). Teachers need to feel prepared to implement RTI, particularly in using scientifically
based interventions and progress monitoring (Nunn & Jantz, 2009; Nunn et al., 2009).
Task Value
Task value refers to the importance one gives to a task (Rueda, 2011). Wigfield and
Eccles (2000) referred to utility value and cost value. Utility value refers to how useful one
believes the task is, and cost value is the perceived cost of the activity in terms of time or effort
(Rueda, 2011). Nunn et al. (2009) found consistent evidence that increases in teacher efficacy
were associated with perceptions of satisfaction with results, improved outcomes of intervention,
data-based decisions, and collaborative team process. Teachers need to see the value of RTI and
39

must feel a compelling reason to change (Buffum et al., 2012). Table 3 summarizes the assumed
motivation influences on stakeholders’ ability to achieve the performance goal.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Task value
Teachers believe that RTI produces
improved outcomes for students and
express satisfaction with the results.
They believe it is work worth doing.
Buffum et al., 2012
Nunn, Jantz & Butikofer, 2009
Nunn & Jantz, 2009

Self-efficacy
Teachers feel prepared to implement RTI,
especially in terms of utilizing
scientifically based interventions and using
progress monitoring.
Nunn, Jantz & Butikofer, 2009
Nunn & Jantz, 2009

40

Organizational Influences
Organizational gaps could be connected to culture, structure, policies and practices and
their alignment with the implementation goal (Rueda, 2011). Culture can be defined as the core
values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes learned over time in personal and work
environments. It is a powerful force in performance but is also challenging to identify and
influence (Clark & Estes, 2008). An organization’s culture is composed of cultural settings and
models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are “shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” (Rueda, 2011, p 55). They
involve shared ways of thinking, perceiving, and reacting to change that are so pervasive that
they are generally invisible (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings are
the visible and concrete locations in which organizational policies are enacted. Several potential
organizational factors influence schools’ enactment of RTI.
Cultural Model of Collective Responsibility and Collaboration
Buffum et al. (2012) described the need for cultural shifts for RTI to work in schools-
from individual to collective responsibility for student learning. They defined collective
responsibility as the shared belief that the primary responsibility of each member of the
organization is to ensure high levels of learning for every child. Muhammad and DuFour (2009)
described this shift in the culture of schools in terms of “technical changes” and “cultural
changes” for RTI. The author argued that significant cultural changes or “changes in norms,
values, assumptions and collective beliefs” must take place before technical changes, which are
“changes made to schedules, instructional materials and policies” (Muhammad, 2009, p. 15). A
collaborative culture in a PLC is where members “work interdependently to achieve common
goals for which members are mutually accountable” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 11–12) and in such
41

a culture, members are expected to learn and work together so that all students learn at high
levels.
Cultural Setting-Role of the Leadership Team
Staff members need to have ownership of the RTI process, and an important part of that
is having an effective leadership team (Bender, 2009; Buffum et al., 2012). Buffum et al. (2012)
stated that this leadership team needs to represent diverse viewpoints and expertise, including
dissenters as well as proven leaders. This team needs to meet frequently and delve deeply into
collective learning about best practices and the organization’s current reality. This group needs to
provide a compelling reason for shifting to an RTI framework and create a shared vision and a
doable plan that delineates responsibilities and provides resources needed to build shared
knowledge and meet expectations (Buffum et al., 2012).
Cultural Setting-Resources
For effective RTI, the school leaders need to create a master schedule with time for
collaboration, core instruction (Tier 1), and supplemental/intensive instruction (Tiers 2 and 3).
They need to coordinate human resources to support interventions, allocate fiscal resources and
continuously monitor evidence of student learning (Buffum et al., 2012). In addition to this,
teachers need access to evidence-based instruction and interventions (Barnes & Harlacher,
2008). Researchers also mention the need for continuous professional development in RTI
(Barnes & Harlacher, 2008; Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014)
It is important for schools to adopt a systemic approach to monitor their effectiveness at
closing gaps in expected versus current performance, wherein the principles of RTI are adopted
across the entire organization (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008; Coyne & Harn, 2006; Simmons et al.,
42

2002). Table 4 summarizes the assumed organizational influences on stakeholders’ ability to
achieve the performance goal.

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Cultural model of collective responsibility and collaboration
Teachers need to be part of a culture of trust and
accountability. The culture aligns with
collaboration and values equity and social
justice. There is collective responsibility for
student learning.
Buffum et al., 2012
DuFour et al., 2016
Muhammad, 2009
Cultural settings-leadership team
RTI efforts are led out by a leadership team/task
force that creates a doable plan,
communicates with stakeholders, and
evaluates its effectiveness regularly.
Bender, 2009
Buffum et al., 2012

Teachers need to work in a systems-level
environment where RTI procedures are
systematically implemented across the whole
school.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Buffum et al., 2012
Cultural settings- resources (time, finances, people)
Teachers need time to work collaboratively as a
PLC to plan for RTI implementation.
Buffum et al., 2012
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Teachers need continuous professional
development in how to implement RTI.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Teachers need adequate staff to implement RTI
interventions.
Buffum et al., 2012
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
Teachers need access to scientifically validated
intervention material to meet the needs of
students working below grade level.
Barnes & Harlacher, 2008
Castro-Villarreal et al., 2014
43

Despite the efforts of educators and schools, some students will experience difficulties in
academic achievement and will require additional support (Weber, 2013). The RTI models have
been found to decrease the number of students exhibiting severe underachievement. Some of the
positive effects of RTI include increasing achievement in reading, spelling and math and
reducing grade level retentions and referrals for special education, particularly for minoritized
students (Burns et al., 2005; Jenkins et al., 2004; Torgeson, 2007; VanDerHeyden et al., 2005).
In this chapter, I examined literature on what RTI is and what teachers need to know to
implement RTI. I also examined what literature on teacher motivation to implement RTI and the
organizational support required for successful implementation. The KMO influences described in
this chapter will be used to assess the implementation of RTI at the RDIS in Chapter Three.

44

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to evaluate RTI implementation
in the early elementary grades at the RDIS. The analysis focused on possible gaps in
implementation related to stakeholder knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
factors. While a complete gap analysis would focus on administrators, faculty, staff, students,
and parents, for practical purposes, this study adapted the gap analysis and focused on one
stakeholder group: Grades K–2 homeroom and learning support teachers. As such, three
questions guided this study:
1. What are learning support and homeroom teachers’ current levels of knowledge and
motivation in implementing an RTI Framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2? (K, M)
2. What are organizational influences that impact the implementation of an RTI
framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2? (O)
3. What are recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO
resources for the implementation of an RTI framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework is a problem-solving process used to evaluate and
analyze stakeholder performance within an organization. It provides a systematic way to clarify
stakeholder and organizational goals, assess performance or achievement of the goals, and
describe the gaps in stakeholder performance with regard to the goals in the KMO factors. This
is also known as a gap analysis and is an eight-step process. After identifying and analyzing
performance gaps’ root causes, organizations can focus on targeted solutions matched to the
identified gaps.
45

The RDIS is over a decade into the implementation of an RTI framework. In this
dissertation, the framework adapted from that of Clark and Estes (2008) and shown in Figure 1
was used to evaluate teacher knowledge of RTI, their motivation to continue to use the RTI
framework and teacher perceptions of organizational barriers and supports as they implement
RTI in the early elementary grades. Based on the study’s findings, recommendations for
improvement are presented in Chapter Five. These could be used to improve the implementation
of RTI at RDIS with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all students at RDIS have educational
equity and access to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that they need to succeed in the 21st
century.

Figure 1
Gap Analysis Process Flow Chart

Note: Adapted from Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions (p. 22) by R.E. Clark & F. Estes, 2008, CEP Press. Copyright 2008 by Richard E.
Clark & Fred Estes

46

Assessment of Performance Influences
Knowledge Assessment
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identify four main types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. As discussed in Chapter Two, in terms of factual and
conceptual knowledge, teachers need to know the essential components of RTI. Teachers also
need to understand what the multiple RTI tiers mean in the context of their schools and identify
which tier would be most beneficial for students given scenarios of students with varied abilities.
For procedural knowledge influences, teachers working in PLCs need to know how to
differentiate the core curriculum to meet all students’ needs. Teachers must know how to assess
student learning, interpret assessments, use interventions to support students and monitor how
well the interventions work. Teachers need to know how to interpret assessments such as
universal screeners and benchmark assessments to identify struggling learners and then create or
use scientifically validated interventions/instruction to help struggling students develop those
essential skills and knowledge.
In terms of metacognitive knowledge, teachers in a PLC need to reflect on their beliefs
around teaching and learning, particularly for students who are marginalized and over-
represented in special education. They need to reflect on their ability to work collaboratively
with other teachers and how to improve the RTI process, which is iterative. All knowledge
questions were addressed through semi-structured interviews, and interview questions have been
listed in Table 5. The complete interview protocol for homeroom teachers can be found in
Appendix A, and the interview protocol for learning support teachers can be found in Appendix
B.

47

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed knowledge influences Interview items
Declarative factual knowledge (terms, facts, concepts)
Teachers should be able to name the
essential components of RTI.
In an ideal implementation of RTI, what essential
components of RTI would be seen?
Declarative conceptual (categories, process models, principles, relationships)
Teachers should understand the
rationale behind RTI.
If someone were to ask you what are the main
goals of implementing an RTI framework are,
what would you say?
Teachers need to understand the
multiple tiers of RTI, their roles in
each tier in their context and which
tier is best suited to their students’
needs.
Suppose a novice teacher at RDIS asked you for an
explanation of the RDIS pyramid of
interventions; how would you explain it to them?
What tier or tiers are you primarily responsible for
in your current role?
Imagine that you have a new student in November.
Maya has been at RDIS for about three weeks.
On the December Aimsweb testing, she tested at
the 15
th
percentile in reading. She is performing a
few months below benchmark on all classroom
assessments and needs adult support to work
with her in a small group at most times.
What tier of support does she need?
Procedural
Teachers in a PLC need to clarify
exactly what each student must learn
and the sequencing and pacing of this
content.
In an RTI model, power standards are essential
learning targets that each child should master.
How would I see teachers currently using power
standards in your grade level?
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
identify which students need help
relative to peers or benchmark
assessments.
An important component of RTI is the use of
assessments in decision making. If someone
were to ask you to explain how you currently use
data identifying students who need support, what
would you say? How do you use data from the
universal screener? How do you use benchmark
assessments?
48

Assumed knowledge influences Interview items
Teachers need to know how to
differentiate core curriculum to meet
the needs of students.
If someone were to walk into your classroom
during core instruction in ELA or math, how
would they experience you differentiating
instruction to meet the needs of students, if at
all?
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
develop strategies and ideas that build
on strengths and address weaknesses
in learning.
Teachers must learn how to implement
empirically validated instruction and
interventions.
What do Tier 2 interventions look like in your
grade level? How do you decide which
interventions a student may need?
One mechanism for Tier 2 at RDIS is acceleration
(AB) block. Tell me how you currently use AB
block, if at all, to provide interventions and
extensions.
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
interpret assessment data to change
instruction. They need to know if
interventions are working-how to
progress monitor students.
How do you know if Tier 2 interventions are
working?
Metacognitive
Teachers need to reflect on their beliefs
and attitudes around RTI and student
learning.
RTI proponents would say that every student can
learn at high levels. What are your beliefs
regarding this statement?
Probe: What does it mean to learn at high levels?
What does this mean at your grade level?
Teachers need to reflect on the extent to
which they worked collaboratively
with other teachers to support student
learning.
To what extent do you work collaboratively with
other teachers to support struggling learners?
How could collaboration be improved in your
grade level?
How the RTI process can be improved
in their context
If you were in charge of improving RTI
implementation at RDIS, what would you do?

Motivation Assessment
This study examined the motivation factors related to teacher self-efficacy, task value and
task persistence based on findings from the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Teacher self-
efficacy is a significant predictor of student achievement, and teachers with high self-efficacy are
49

far more likely to persevere with students with learning problems and address student needs.
Task value, or the importance one gives to a task and cost value in terms of the time and effort
taken, was examined along with task persistence, which is the willingness to initiate and
maintain innovations. Teachers need to see the value of RTI and must feel a compelling reason
to change their practices. They need to feel prepared to implement it, particularly in using
scientifically based interventions and progress monitoring. All motivation questions were
addressed through semi-structured interviews, and questions related to motivational factors have
been listed in Table 6.

Table 6
Summary of Motivational Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed motivational influences Interview items
Task value
Teachers believe that RTI produces
improved outcomes for students and
express satisfaction with the results.
They believe it is work worth doing given
costs in terms of time and effort.
What, if any, have been some of the
successes you have experienced with AB
block?
Relative to costs in terms of time and
effort, to what degree do you feel that
RTI is worth implementing in schools?
Self-efficacy
Teachers feel prepared to implement RTI,
especially in terms of utilizing
scientifically based interventions.
How confident do you feel about
implementing RTI in your role? How
confident do you feel about using
scientifically validated interventions in
your role? What factors contribute to
feeling this way?

50

Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
Organizational gaps could be connected to culture, structure, policies and practices and
their alignment with the implementation goal. For RTI to work from individual to collective
responsibility for student learning, several cultural shifts need to occur. In a collaborative culture,
members are expected to learn and work together so that all students learn at high levels.
This study also examined teacher perceptions regarding the role of a leadership team. A
leadership team provides the rationale for shifting to an RTI framework, creates a doable plan,
delineates responsibilities, and provides resources like staffing, fiscal resources, and a master
schedule with times for tiered intervention. In addition to this, teachers need access to evidence-
based instruction and interventions and continuous professional development in RTI. This
leadership team supports the organization to adopt RTI across the whole school, monitors its
effectiveness and steers the organization to make changes. All organizational culture and context
questions were addressed through semi-structured interviews, and questions related to these
factors have been listed in Table 7.

51

Table 7
Summary of Organizational Influences and the Method of Assessment
Assumed organization influences Interview items
Culture
Teachers need to be part of a culture of trust
and accountability. The culture aligns with
collaboration and values equity and social
justice. There is collective responsibility
for student learning.
Tell me about the culture at RDIS and how it
positively or negatively impacts RTI
implementation.

Policies, processes, and procedures
RTI efforts are led out by a leadership
team/task force that creates a doable plan,
communicates with stakeholders, and
evaluates its effectiveness regularly.
Which group of individuals do you believe is
responsible for leading RTI
implementation in the elementary
division? What support, if any, have you
received from this group to implement
RTI in your role?
Teachers need to work in a systems-level
environment where RTI procedures are
systematically implemented across the
whole school.
How, if at all, does RDIS ensure that RTI
procedures are systematically
implemented across the school?

Resources (time, finances, people)
Teachers need time to work collaboratively
as a PLC to plan for RTI implementation.
What are your thoughts about having
sufficient time to collaborate and plan?
What are your thoughts about having a
schedule to do interventions? What are
your thoughts about having sufficient
personnel to implement RTI?
Teachers need access to scientifically
validated intervention material to meet the
needs of students working below grade
level.
What are your thoughts about having
sufficient scientifically validated
interventions?
Teachers need continuous professional
development in how to implement RTI.
What kind of professional development, if
any, do you still need to improve your
practice of RTI?

52

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this paper was Grades K–2 classroom teachers and
learning support teachers at RDIS. There are 27 classroom teachers and learning support teachers
at RDIS in Grades K–2 who meet the eligibility criteria for the study. To gain various
perspectives, I sought to select three to four teachers at each grade level for a minimum of at
least 12 interviews. Sampling included teachers in leadership roles, such as PLC coordinators,
classroom teachers who are not in a leadership position and learning support teachers, so that
data represents stakeholders with different roles and degrees of power in the organization. Five
teachers have recently switched grade levels within K–2, and their perspectives on alignment or
lack thereof in RTI implementation were central to this study. I do not have any direct authority
over any of the participants, and I am in a supporting, not evaluative, role.
The study employed a purposeful non-probability sampling technique using a naturalistic
inquiry approach. The interview was limited to teachers with at least a year of experience
teaching at RDIS so that they understood the context. Although male teachers are in a small
minority in these grade levels, I included a mix of genders when possible. Most teachers in these
grade levels have worked at RDIS for over 3 years, but every attempt was made to include
teachers who had worked in the organization for less than that.
Recruitment
After getting clearance from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), I met with the
elementary school principal to share the purpose of the study, explain the recruitment process,
and share the informed consent letter (Appendix C) and recruitment email (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). After getting approval from the IRB and administration, following guidelines from
Lochmiller and Lester (2017), I sent out a recruitment letter via email to K–2 homeroom teachers
53

and learning support teachers to explain the study and gain interest. The recruitment email
presented an overview of the study, the process and the confidentiality measures used (Appendix
D).
Instrumentation: Interview Design Protocol and Document Analysis
This study employed semi-structured, open-ended qualitative interviews and document
analysis. Although qualitative interviews were the primary data collection method, document
analysis was used to support and complement the interview data. The study was inductive,
moving from specific to broad understandings. The framework and structure of the questions
were designed using guidelines from Patton (2002), Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) and
Merriam and Tisdell (2016). My perspective was that of an insider, an emic perspective
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and I mined this inside knowledge, along with what is supported by
literature, in framing the questions. To test these assumptions without bias, I avoided leading
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and employed experts’ feedback to ensure that questions
were neutral, and my biases were not apparent to respondents. While most of the questions were
the same for all respondents, some questions were different for learning support and classroom
teachers due to their differing roles.
The interview had three main sections related to motivation, knowledge, and
organizational resources. Knowledge questions relate to declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge of RTI. The section on motivation dealt with self-efficacy and task
value in implementing RTI. The final section related to the interviewees’ perceptions of
organizational support and the barriers they have experienced in implementing RTI.
The study also employed document analysis of the RDIS 2020–21 support services
review findings to help triangulate findings from the interviews. The review was formed by a
54

core team of cross-divisional representatives and employed surveys, classroom observations,
focus groups and internal auditing of support services documents and processes. The audits’
findings were compared to the interview findings using a protocol (see Appendix E).
Data Collection
Following the IRB’s approval, participants were solicited for an interview. I conducted
all interviews, which were recorded and lasted 60–75 minutes. An interview protocol guided the
process and ensured a smooth flow. Interview questions and prompts for the interview were
rehearsed. Due to safe distancing procedures related to COVID-19, all interviews took place via
Zoom and followed the COVID-19 policy at RDIS. A voice recording app was used as a backup
recording device. Notes were taken manually in case of technical difficulties. Participants were
notified in advance that interviews would be recorded. The voice recording app created a
transcript, which I reviewed. At the conclusion of the interview, all interviewees received a thank
you card and a $15 Starbucks gift card. Interviewees were told in advance about the gift card.
Data Analysis
Data analysis ensued during the interviews. I wrote a reflective after interviews to
document connections, ideas, follow-up questions and possible codes as they emerge. I analyzed
and coded the results using iterative steps. I conducted line-by-line coding to name and identify
concepts that emerged. I determined a priori codes were from the research questions and
inductive codes from the data. I read closely to refine codes created from initial transcripts. I
grouped codes into higher-level categories to identify themes. I used reflective memos to attempt
to surface alternate explanations and search for discrepant evidence (Maxwell, 2013).
55

The document analysis of the 2021 RDIS support services review findings pertained to
overlaps and discrepancies between the review findings and the interview findings in the areas of
KMO factors using a protocol. The protocol has been included in Appendix C.
Trustworthiness of Data
To maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of this qualitative study, I employed two
main techniques, chiefly respondent validation and reflective memos (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Since the researcher is the main instrument of data collection, I actively questioned my
subjectivity through reflective memos after each interview (Peshkin, 1988). To ensure that
results were representative of respondent views and not my biases, I shared them with
participants for member checking and carried out respondent validation once findings emerged
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I coded the data and examined conclusions,
particularly discrepant evidence, to avoid the possibility of ignoring data that did not fit the
conclusions drawn.
Role of Investigator
I work at RDIS, the organization that is also the research site. Maxwell (2013) described
the goals of research as personal, practical, and intellectual, and for me, this study checked off all
three goals. This study was personally important to me from an equity point of view. As a
learning support teacher, I am driven to ensure that all students receive the support they need to
master essential standards and skills and learn at high levels. From a practical point of view, I
would like to see teachers apply RTI based on best practices in literature and from an intellectual
point of view, I believed this study would help me better understand the complexities of RTI.
This improved knowledge of RTI can help me support the PLC I am part of and improve the
PLC’s collective understanding and application of RTI.
56

The study is applied research, as the goal was to improve the quality of practice (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). My personal belief, supported by research, is that RTI has the potential to
improve student learning when it is applied with fidelity, keeping in mind the four principles of
collective responsibility, concentrated instruction, convergent assessments, and certain access
(Buffum et al., 2012). My biases are that I do not believe that RDIS has systematically and
thoughtfully implemented RTI, although some sporadic elements of RTI are seen. I believe that
teachers vary greatly in their knowledge of RTI, and I also believe that many teachers are
currently not feeling very motivated to apply RTI. These biases are based on my experiences in
the organization for the past decade, my informal conversations with colleagues and observations
of teacher collaborative planning and use of data. My perspective is that of an insider, an emic
perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I have mined these assumptions, along with what is
supported in literature in framing questions. However, to truly test these assumptions without
bias, I have to ensure that I am avoiding leading questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To that
end, I have employed the strategy of seeking feedback from experts, such as professors at the
University of Southern California, to ensure that questions are neutral and that my biases are not
clear to respondents.
I do not hold positional power at RDIS, although I am an elected member of the staff
faculty senate. In this capacity, I work with other teacher representatives to raise issues of
importance to teachers to the administration. I believe that being an advocate for faculty may
help teachers speak more honestly in the interview, as I am not aligned with administrators who
are gatekeepers to RTI. I have worked as a learning support teacher in all the early elementary
grades, and many of the teachers I interviewed were both colleagues and friends. I have worked
in one grade level for over a decade. Many teachers in this grade level know that I have been
57

actively involved with RTI implementation in my grade level. In my limited capacity, I have
worked to ensure that teachers have had a voice in how RTI is implemented. One result of a
presentation that I did with the team saw a big shift in how the grade level approached RTI.
Teacher feedback on the change was positive, and the process was simplified and streamlined
based on collaborative decision making. I believe that teachers in my grade level who have been
at RDIS know that I am invested in improving RTI, but there are several newer teachers in the
grade and teachers in other grades, whom I interviewed, who were not aware of my involvement
with RTI or be known to be in a personal capacity. This could be an advantage.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) found pilot testing questions to be important. Pilot testing
was largely positive, and the teachers I interviewed for the pilot were outspoken and honest. My
racial identity as South Asian may help educators who are Black, Indigenous, and other people
of color (BIPOC) see me as an ally. The length of time I have worked in an American
educational organization has helped me build cultural competence in working with colleagues of
all races, although I do not assume that I fully understand the perspectives of stakeholders whose
cultural backgrounds differ from mine. Milner (2007) noted that researchers need not come from
the same racial or cultural community as respondents, but it is important to constantly reflect on
the process and pursue deeper cultural and racial knowledge. I am often more comfortable with
conflict and more expressive of feelings than most white educators, and it can be challenging to
adopt the more neutral stance required during a research interview. However, being aware of this
is the first step. Since most early elementary teachers are female, I do not believe that my gender
had a huge impact, but I made every attempt to include male respondents.

58

Ethics
Ethics is minimizing harm to participants from a study. My friendship with potential
participants could certainly be a factor in making them feel coerced to participate, which is why I
plan to stress to them in person and in the Informed Consent Form that they have a choice not to
participate, as also a choice in not answering questions that they feel uncomfortable answering. I
used purposeful rather than convenience sampling for the study, but I believe that despite my
best efforts, being known to participants may have made them more likely to respond to a
request to participate. My hope was that they felt that the time spent interviewing with me was
thought-provoking and that the cause of improving student learning was a worthy one for them.
During the interview, I knew that teachers might feel uncomfortable if they were unable
to answer the knowledge questions. While more challenging items are typically placed at the
end, I placed these quite early in the interview so that I could establish a common understanding
of terms. Right at the start, I stressed that individual teachers were not being assessed, and the
purpose was to find themes in gaps in teacher knowledge to focus on RTI improvement. Having
flexibility in the semi-structured interview meant that I could respond to the respondent’s facial
cues when they seemed uncomfortable. I could also offer to stop recording if they wanted to be
off the record.
The relatively small sample made it all the more imperative for me to be careful in giving
out demographic information that might reveal who the participants were and what they actually
said. For instance, there were just five learning support teachers in the grades I studied, and I am
one of them. Similarly, there were just a few BIPOC and male teachers in those grades. I
followed the procedures Lochmiller and Lester (2017) prescribed to recruit and sample
participants and obtain informed consent. I protected them from possible harm by removing
59

identifying information such as name and grade level and using pseudonyms (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Transcripts were stored in a locked cupboard, and digital data were password-
protected. I did not give out information on who was surveyed to anyone, especially
administrators. Being identified could put them in harm’s way in terms of how those in power
view them, and I ensured that their identities were kept confidential.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations to this study. One limitation is that data triangulation was
done mainly through document analysis. The 2020–21 RDIS support services review was likely
not developed for research purposes. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) cautioned that documents may
thus be incomplete from a research perspective. The findings of the interviews were not
triangulated directly by other methods such as observations, surveys or focus groups. However,
the RDIS support services used teacher observations, focus groups, and a teacher survey.
Another limitation of the study relates to the relatively small sample size of teachers. This study
cannot be generalized to other settings, and it applies to the early elementary grades at RDIS
only. Limitations may occur from gaps in the study of literature. While attempts were made to
use various perspectives in forming questions, some literature may have been unintentionally
missed. There may have been limitations in the interviews where teachers may have been
hesitant or fearful to state what they actually believed.
This study’s delimitations relate to the selection criteria. I only included teachers in the
early elementary grades, and I purposely included teachers who had been at RDIS for at least a
school year, as I wanted them to have a clear understanding of how RTI works at their grade
levels. This study did not include newer staff members in terms of understanding their
perspectives on RTI implementation at RDIS. I did not include teachers who teach immersion
60

classes as they are very early in their implementation of RTI, and their perspectives, while
valuable, should be an independent study. Yet another delimitation is that the selection of
respondents was voluntary. The results could be biased by only those teachers who have strong
feelings about RTI implementation. The perspectives of administrators responsible for leading
out RTI at RDIS were also not included. This is also a delimitation.

61

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to conduct an adapted gap analysis to evaluate the
implementation of RTI at the RDIS in Grades K–2. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a system
of support that harnesses the collective knowledge and skills of an organization to ensure that all
students have the essential knowledge and skills to succeed at school and beyond by providing
additional time and support in multiple tiers (Buffum et al., 2012). The analysis focused on
possible gaps in implementation related to stakeholder knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational factors. This chapter presents the results and findings.
Qualitative data were collected primarily through interviews and were the central source
of determining needs and assets. Document analysis followed interviews to provide validation of
interview findings. Interviews lasted about 60-80 minutes. Interviews were video recorded on
Zoom and transcribed using Otter ai. Transcripts were coded by a priori KMO influences as well
as inductive codes from emerging themes. Results were organized by KMO influences and
determined to be an asset or a need impacting the implementation of RTI. The following research
questions guided data collection:
1. What are learning support and homeroom teachers’ current levels of knowledge and
motivation in implementing an RTI Framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
2. What are the organizational factors that influence the implementation of an RTI
framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
3. What are recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO resources
for the implementation of an RTI framework with fidelity at the RDIS in Grades K–
2?

62

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this study were classroom and learning support teachers in Grades
K–2 at RDIS. In all, 13 teachers agreed to participate in interviews. A minimum of three
classroom teachers represented each grade level. Two stakeholders were learning support
teachers, and 11 were classroom teachers. Teachers who had been at RDIS for less than a year
were excluded from the study. Six teachers were in leadership positions in the grade level,
leading out either the entire grade level or small group PLCs. The average teaching experience
was 21.7 years, and the average time teaching at RDIS was 10.8 years.
Data on gender, age and race were not collected. Due to the small stakeholder group,
additional information is withheld to protect anonymity. Table 8 provides more information
about participants and their current roles in the organization.

Table 8
Participating Stakeholders
Participant Grade level/subject taught
1 Kindergarten classroom
3 Kindergarten classroom
7 Kindergarten classroom
11 Kindergarten classroom
9 Grade 1 classroom
10 Grade 1 classroom
12 Grade 1 classroom
13 Grade 1 classroom
5 Grade 2 classroom
6 Grade 2 classroom
8 Grade 2 classroom
2 Learning support
4 Learning support

63

Determination of Assets and Needs
A cut-off score of at least 80% was used to decide if an influence was a need or an asset.
Questions differed slightly based on whether teachers were homeroom or learning support
teachers, as seen in the interview protocols in Appendices A and B. Questions relating to the
entire organization were asked of all 13 teachers. In these situations, a minimum of 11 out of 13
teachers had to validate the influence for it to become an asset or a need. Some questions were
asked only to the 11 homeroom teachers, particularly those connected to Tier 1 and Tier 2, as
these are tiers where they have the most influence. In these situations, an influence was
determined to be an asset when nine out of 11 teachers validated the influence. Questions
relating to Tier 2 and Tier 3 were asked of the learning support teachers as these are the tiers that
they impact the most. As only two learning support teachers volunteered to be interviewed, both
teachers had to validate the influence for it to be considered a need or asset. Data were
triangulated by comparing the results to document analysis of the school’s learning support audit.
If the influence was also mentioned as a need or an asset, then it confirmed the findings. If the
data were misaligned, an influence was determined to be a need. If the influence was not studied
or mentioned in the audit, it was deemed an area for further study.
Results and Findings
The study’s findings are organized by KMO influences. Knowledge influences were
subdivided into declarative factual knowledge, declarative conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. The motivational influences studied were task value
and self-efficacy. Organizational influences were organized by culture, policies, and procedures.

64

Declarative Factual Knowledge
Influence 1: Teachers Should Be Able to Name the Essential Components of RTI
Interview Findings: Only one subject (Participant 5) could name at least three of the
essential components of RTI, namely multi-tiers, prevention/early intervention, universal
screening, identifying at-risk/struggling students, evidence-based instruction/interventions,
progress monitoring and problem solving. Six of those interviewed (Participants 3, 9, 10, 5, 2,
and 4) mentioned progress monitoring, one participant (Participant 5) mentioned multi-tiers, and
five participants (Participants 7, 9, 12, 5 and 4) mentioned using interventions but not that these
should be evidence-based.
Document Analysis: The audit document states that schools with strong RTI structures
have universal screening, progress monitoring, data-based decision making, and systems of
multi-level presentations. It also confirms that teachers need professional development in tiered
instruction and progress monitoring,
Summary: The assumed influence that teachers should be able to name the essential
components of RTI was determined to be a need in interviews, but factual knowledge of RTI
components was not mentioned in the review document. This influence requires further study.
Declarative Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 2: Teachers Should Be Able to Understand the Rationale Behind RTI
Interview Findings: Only four participants (Participants 5, 9, 10 and 12) could articulate
that the main goal of implementing an RTI framework was to provide timely, targeted,
systematic interventions to students who demonstrate a need without delay so that each student
can master power standards. None of the participants mentioned that it was also a process for
determining eligibility for special education to counter equity issues with the discrepancy model.
65

Document Analysis: The audit document mentions a disconnect in understanding
vocabulary specific to RTI. However, it did not specifically explore if teachers understood the
rationale or need for RTI.
Summary: The assumed influence that teachers should be able to understand the
rationale behind RTI was determined to be a need in interviews, but the influence was not
examined in the document. This is an area to explore further.
Influence 3: Teachers Need to Understand the Multiple Tiers of RTI, Their Roles in Each Tier
in Their Context and Which Tier Is Best Suited to Their Students ’ Needs
Interview Findings. Eight participants (Participants 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12) could
explain the multiple tiers at RDIS. Among those who were unclear about the tiers, two
participants were unsure about Tier 1 (Participants 7 and 8), and three were unclear about Tier 2
(Participants 1, 13, and 8). Participant 7 shared these thoughts about the tiers, “Honestly, I find it
tough because it keeps changing, and it’s become convoluted along the way with different
people.” Participant 4 expressed discomfort with the idea that students who were seeing learning
support daily in both literacy and math were still considered as needing Tier 2 level of support.
All 13 participants were clear as to which tier or tiers they had the main responsibility for
overseeing. However, when classroom teachers were asked which tier of support a fictitious
student required, only six out of 11 teachers correctly named the tier of support.
Document Analysis. The audit document mentions a disconnect in understanding
vocabulary specific to RTI and specifically that the tiers are not clearly understood.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers should be able to understand the specific
tiers of RTI was determined to be a need in both the interviews and the document analysis.

66

Procedural Knowledge
Influence 4: Teachers in a PLC Need to Clarify Exactly What Each Student Must Learn and
the Sequencing and Pacing of This Content
Interview Findings. Out of 11 participants, only three (Participants 9, 10, and 12)
clarified that power standards had been identified, sequenced, and organized along with
assessments and interventions. All three were from the same grade level, which indicated that
this grade level was more consistently using power standards and had aligned assessments and
instruction to match power standards. However, this was not true of other grade levels.
Participant 3 mentioned that they were unsure of which standards are power standards and that it
seems to be in people’s heads. Similarly, Participant 7 mentioned, “It’s in a document, but I
don’t think many of us are looking at it.” Participant 11 stated, “I cannot tell you that I myself
know what the power standards are, though I have been teaching for a long time.” Participant 8
said, “Math is the only place where we have identified power standards, but I don’t think the
process of choosing power standards was clear.”
Document Analysis. The audit document states that faculty are clear about what students
should learn and be able to do.
Summary. There is a misalignment in the findings of the interview and the survey.
Therefore, the assumed influence that teachers in a PLC need to clarify exactly what each student
must learn and the sequencing and pacing of this content was determined to be a need.
Influence 5: Teachers in a PLC Need to Know How to Identify Which Students Need Help
Relative to Peers or Benchmark Assessments
Interview Findings. Out of 11 participants, eight named using multiple data points,
which included the use of a universal screener, benchmark assessments, progress monitoring,
67

and ongoing common formative and summative assessments. Participants 8 and 11 mentioned
that they did not find information from the universal screener useful. Participant 8 mentioned
that they do not use information from the universal screener because it does not match classroom
assessment data.
Document Analysis. The audit document states that progress monitoring was evidenced
by classroom observations. However, it also states that the expectations and operational
definition of what constitutes progress monitoring vary across divisions and may be unclear.
Furthermore, it states that students who perform at extreme ends of the learning continuum are
easily identified, but there is a need for a formal identification and advancement process between
tiers.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers in a PLC need to know how to identify
which students need help relative to peers or benchmark assessments is determined to be a need
in both the interview and document analysis.
Influence 6: Teachers Need to Know How to Differentiate Core Curriculum to Meet the Needs
of Students
Interview Findings. Nine participants could describe different ways that they
differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs (Participants 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12).
These nine participants usually described how they modified the process and content of
instruction, and seven subjects mentioned differentiation based on their knowledge of student
needs. Participant 5 mentioned that they found the current structure, separation of subjects, time
restrictions and workshop model challenging in terms of differentiation. They also talked about
how they received no training in the workshop model used at RDIS and found mini-lessons in
68

the workshop hard to differentiate. The same participant felt they could differentiate more
effectively prior to joining RDIS.
When asked what support was needed to differentiate more effectively, four participants
mentioned they needed more training to work with English language learners (Participants 1, 11,
13, and 8), one participant (Participant 1) mentioned they needed support to work with
differentiating for high math achieving students and one participant mentioned the need for more
training on how to differentiate within the workshop (Participant 5). Three participants
(Participants 7, 10, and 11) mentioned the need for more personnel to support instruction, such as
trained instructional assistants, assistants who speak the language of the dominant English
language learner majority students and more hands-on-deck staff to help meet students’ needs.
Two participants (Participants 3 and 9) mentioned that the lack of time to differentiate was an
issue, as instructional blocks were too short.
Document Analysis. The audit document identified that providing differentiated learning
and coaching opportunities for teachers regarding differentiated Tier 1 instruction was a need.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers in a PLC need to know how to
differentiate was found to be an asset in the interviews based on teacher self-reporting, and it was
noted as a need in the audit. As the data is discrepant, the assumed influence that teachers should
know how to differentiate is determined to be a need.
Influence 7: Teachers in a PLC Need to Know How to Develop Strategies and Ideas That
Build on Strengths and Address Weaknesses in Learning. Teachers Must Learn to Implement
Empirically Validated Instruction and Interventions
Interview Findings. When asked what Tier 2 interventions look like in their grade level
to address weaknesses in learning, not one of the 13 subjects gave a description that matched
69

more than three descriptors of how Tier 2 interventions were described in the literature. Several
teachers described what they did to support students, but descriptions of clear systems to provide
Tier 2 interventions were missing. Participants in Kindergarten and Grade 1 (Participants 1, 3, 7,
11, 9, 10, 12, and 13) described times in the schedule, called an RTI block or Acceleration Block
(AB), typically two times a week for 30 minutes at certain times in the year, that they used either
for extending students or in meeting students’ needs. They described using hands-on-deck people
to help reduce the number of students in a class. The teachers worked with students in small
groups while other students worked independently. Teachers did not typically share or rotate
students during this time. Participant 12 said, “Initially, all students were moving, but teachers
weren’t happy with it. To utilize that model, we have to do more RTI work.” However,
participants from Grade 2 (Participants 5, 6, and 8) said that AB block was not happening.
Participant 5 said, “We are not using AB block. We haven’t since COVID.”
Document Analysis. Document findings reported a lack of preparedness among faculty
to practice an RTI model with fidelity.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers in a PLC know how to develop strategies
and ideas that build on strengths and address weaknesses in learning while using empirically
validated interventions is found to be a need in both interviews and document analysis.
Influence 8: Teachers in a PLC Need to Know How to Interpret Assessment Data to Change
Instruction, and They Need to Know How/If Interventions Are Working and How to Progress
Monitor Students
Interview Findings. When asked how they knew if interventions were working, all but
one participant mentioned assessments. Only six participants specifically mentioned progress
monitoring (Participants 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 2, and 4). The learning support teachers gave more
70

specifics than classroom teachers about how and how often they monitored progress and where
they kept progress-monitoring data. They expressed confidence in their ability to monitor
students’ progress. However, it was apparent that both general and learning support teachers
were monitoring progress using ongoing assessments rather than following the operational
definition of progress monitoring.
Document Analysis. The document states that progress monitoring was evidenced by
classroom observations and that progress was monitored quarterly, at least in intervention and
individual educational support plans written for students receiving learning support. They found
a higher prevalence of formative progress monitoring in support classrooms than in general
classrooms. The document analysis also noted that the operational definition of what constitutes
progress monitoring varied across the school.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers in a PLC know how/if interventions
were working using progress monitoring was found to be a need in both interviews and the
document analysis. Both interviews and document analysis indicate that there is a need to build a
common understanding of what constitutes progress monitoring for both general and special
education teachers.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 9: Teachers Reflect on Their Beliefs and Attitudes Around RTI and Student
Learning
Interview Findings. When asked about their beliefs regarding the statement that “given
time and support every student can learn at high levels,” all 13 participants agreed. Participant 9
stated, “I absolutely 100% believe that we can get the power standards to all of our students. You
have to go into it with that belief, or you are doomed.” Participant 12 similarly asserted, “I
71

believe that every child can learn at high levels. Shouldn’t be a teacher if you don’t hold that
belief. When teachers believe in students, it helps them believe in themselves.” Participant 5
said, “In our setting, all students have the potential to be at grade level benchmarks if you have
the right teaching and benchmarks in place.”
Participant 6 agreed with the statement but felt that the term “high levels” was
subjective.
Document Analysis. The program review document did not mention teacher beliefs
about students and their capacity to learn given time and support. However, in a survey done as
part of the review and shared with staff, teachers were found to believe that RTI was important.
Summary. The influence that teachers reflect on their beliefs and attitudes around RTI
was found to be an asset. The RDIS should more clearly define the term “high levels.”
Influence 10: Teachers Reflect on the Extent to Which They Worked Collaboratively With
Other Teachers to Support Student Learning
Interview Findings. When asked how teachers worked collaboratively with other
teachers, only six out of the 11 participants mentioned that they collaborated with colleagues to
meet student needs (Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11). Participant 1 gave examples of how they
worked with the English as an Additional Language (EAL) teachers, the grade-level speech-
language pathologist and the learning support teacher. However, in working with other
homeroom teachers, they said, “I might incidentally bring up students with my partner in the
community but not systematically.” A few teachers mentioned that they planned with a few other
teachers (Participants 3, 7, and 11). Participant 11 said, “I have my planning team. We discuss
different ways we can extend or break it down, what’s worked or hasn’t. It’s very good
professionally for me to have these conversations.”
72

A few participants brought up the negative impact of COVID-19 on collaborating to meet
student needs (Participants 3, 7, and 10). Participant 3 mentioned, “With COVID, it’s been hard
because the whole bubble has been shut.” Similarly, Participant 12 said that “COVID has done a
number on collaborating with the teacher next door. Previously, I had three teachers I was
working with, and we would have these reading groups, but with teacher turnover and COVID, it
stopped.” Participant 5 said, “We didn’t do a good job during COVID. During COVID, we
didn’t get much time, no talk around low students, school priorities took over and got lost in the
mix. Data days were helpful. We should do those.” Several teachers did not feel they
collaborated to meet student needs. Participant 6 felt that pedagogical differences made it
challenging. Participant 9 said,
We do not get much time to collaborate. Few reasons-too much is thrown at PLCS, and it’s
hard to juggle the PLC calendar and fit in everything that people want. We need better
protocols for looking at data. We don’t look at our struggling learners and specifically what
we can do. Don’t know if we lack protocols, or we are tired, or not bringing the right
assessments to the PLCs.
Teachers and learning support had differing ideas about the extent of collaboration. Participant
13, a homeroom teacher, while talking about working with learning support, said, “I don’t think
there is any collaboration. I just ask learning support what’s going on.”
In contrast, both learning support teachers (Participants 2 and 4) talked about working
closely with classroom teachers. Participant 2 said, “I belong in a PLC with five teachers, and I
work closely with those teachers to help them support students who are struggling.”
73

Document Analysis. While the document did not examine teachers reflecting on
collaboration, it suggested that using PLC Questions 2–4 in a unit planning cycle would support
teachers to engage in collaborative professional inquiry to improve instructional practices:
• How will we know if students are learning,
• How will we respond if they are not?
• What will we do if students have already achieved the target?
Summary. The influence that teachers reflect on the extent to which they worked
collaboratively to meet student needs was found to be a need in both the interview findings and
indirectly in the document analysis.
Task Value Motivation Influences
Influence 11: Teachers Believe That RTI Is Work Worth Doing Given Costs in Terms of Time
and Effort
Interview Findings. When asked if, relative to costs in terms of time and effort, teachers
believed that RTI was worth implementing in schools, 11 out of 13 participants answered in the
affirmative (Participants 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13). Participant 6 thought it should be a
high priority and a way to reach most students. Similarly, Participant 1 said, “How can anyone
argue about wanting your students to learn at higher levels? And if people are assigned to help
you, yes, please!” Participant 13 said, “Extremely important, one of the most important things
we can be spending our time and money on as an institution.” Several participants mentioned
RTI was worth doing if implemented meaningfully and discussed some of the challenges and
barriers they faced (Participants 1, 2, 3, 7, 8. 9, and 11). Participant 3 summed it up thus,
74

I think it’s really important, and when well planned, it can be helpful and effective.
However, we are doing many things and not necessarily going deep. Having fewer things
on our plate would be great because we can do those things well, whether it is RTI or not.
Participant 9 spoke to a similar sentiment: “It [is] definitely worth implementing. I think you
have to have it, it’s essential, but you need time to plan it, which is part of the problem when you
are pulled for committees.” Participant 2 said, “I think it’s very, very valuable. I feel like it’s
worth it, and if we have decided to do it as an elementary school, then it’s worth doing it
properly, or we don’t do it at all.”
Only two participants did not feel it was worthwhile. Participant 4 said, “I don’t feel it’s
worth it. I know RTI was created by [NCLB], and I wonder if it fits our context. Can be taught
with some structures in place and differentiation.” Participant 5 said,
I like the idea of progress monitoring and intensifying as we need, but for genuine RTI to
happen, we need a lot of planning time. But even so, I don’t know if it [is] worth it to have
so many meetings about data. It would be more effective if I had a co-teacher shared
planning time.
Document Analysis. The review document did not specifically state whether teachers
valued RTI.
Summary. The influence that teachers at RDIS value RTI was found to be a strength in
interviews, but task value/motivation of RTI was not mentioned in the support services review.
This influence requires further exploration and study.

75

Self-Efficacy Motivation Influences
Influence 12: Teachers Feel Prepared to Implement RTI
Interview Findings. When asked if teachers felt prepared to implement RTI, seven out
of 13 participants felt confident (Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 13). Participant 13 said, “I’m
pretty confident. If I have time to plan, I can have a well-run, successful RTI block.” Participant
1 said, “I’m confident because I know my students. Don’t have the same confidence in some of
the other hands on deck who are not classroom teachers.” Participant 5 felt confident but also
expressed concerns about the underlying structures to support RTI. A couple of subjects alluded
to the lack of training. Participant 11 thought that they could be doing much better if they had
more knowledge. Participant 7, who was in a leadership role, said, “I need more direction as PLC
Coordinator.” Participant 12 seemingly contradicted themselves and stated, “Have high self-
confidence, but I have self-doubt if I am doing the right thing, which levels out my confidence
because I have not received a lot of training.”
Document Analysis. The review document did not specifically examine teacher self-
efficacy.
Summary. The influence that teachers at RDIS feel confident implementing RTI was
found to be a need in the interviews but was not mentioned in the document. This influence
requires future exploration.
Influence 13: Teachers Feel Confident in Their Ability to Implement Scientifically Based
Interventions
Interview Findings. When asked if teachers felt confident in their ability to implement
scientifically based interventions, 11 out of 13 said no. The only teachers who felt confident in
their ability to do so were the learning support teachers (Participants 2 and 4). Participant 4
76

expressed concerns that such interventions were not enjoyable for students but asserted, “Most
scientifically proven and easy to implement interventions were manual-driven and easy to
implement.” Two other subjects expressed a similar lack of trust in such interventions. Subject 1
had concerns about using scientifically validated interventions and thought that the most
important things were the hardest to measure. Participant 5 echoed this sentiment: “Children
don’t fit a manual. May need to bring in strategies from a few different interventions.”
Many teachers were unclear about what scientifically validated meant. Participant 13 felt
they could use them if they knew what they were. Participant 11 expressed that they could be
more proficient if they had more professional development [PD] on using such interventions.
Several homeroom teachers felt that they lacked scientifically validated interventions. Participant
9 said, “We don’t have those. Basically, all our interventions are made up or created or bought.”
Participant 10 expressed similar sentiments and asserted, “What we have in classrooms isn’t the
best set of resources. I feel like we have made up our own progress monitoring.”
Document Analysis. The review document enumerates the use of varied and aligned
interventions as an area for growth, but teacher efficacy in using these interventions was not
specifically examined.
Summary. The influence that teachers feel confident in their ability to use scientifically
based interventions was found to be a need in interviews but was not studied in the review
document. This influence requires further study.

77

Organizational Influences-Culture
Influence 14: Teachers Need to Be Part of a Culture of Trust and Accountability. The Culture
Aligns With Collaboration and Values Equity and Social Justice. There Is Collective
Responsibility for Student Learning
Interview Findings. When asked about the culture of RDIS and how it positively or
negatively impacts RTI implementation, five participants out of 13 (Participants 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9)
mentioned that collaboration was part of the culture. Participant 5 discussed that there was a
shared culture of all being responsible that was strong. Participant 9 felt that RDIS teachers
wanted the best for students. They wanted students to get the skills, and teachers did collaborate.
Participant 8 also named small PLC as a positive aspect of the culture that supports RTI.
Participant 3 said, “We have a PLC culture, and small-group PLCS are cohesive,
collaborate when possible and know they have to work together.”
Not everyone believed that the culture was one of collective responsibility outside of the
PLC. Participant 3 also stated, “We say we have collective responsibility, but the actions of the
hands-on-deck people don’t necessarily support that.” Participant 4 also stated, “The cultural
shift of all hands on deck, these are our students, has not happened.” None of the participants
stated the culture values social justice and equity or discussed trust and accountability. Some
other positive aspects of the culture that were mentioned were that RDIS had an intent or vision
about being proficient (at RTI). Participant 6 said, “The school is willing to innovate and try
different things. It has no hidden messages and hardworking dedicated people.” Similarly,
Participant 12 also talked about constant movement and growth and stated,
It’s always training you at something. Not a stagnant school. It does expect you to learn
this and stay current. It is a caring culture where students feel loved, both by classroom
78

teachers and learning support. Students are excited to go to learning support. Culture of
care and learning support being fun, students getting what they need, and it’s ok. Students
don’t know if they are in the lowest reading group or need extension.
While discussing changes in culture after RTI was introduced, Participant 1 appreciated
the data-focused culture and felt that RDIS had become more collaborative and that RTI had put
a framework on their thinking around meeting all learners’ needs and how it was possible to do
that. Participant 7 said, “There’s a concentrated effort to support kids who don’t get it. We didn’t
look at things this way before RTI was implemented.” Some participants talked about the data-
driven culture. Participant 5 said, “We use data to identify students, can see progress. It’s a data
culture.”
However, not all participants felt like being data-driven was positive. Participant 6 felt
that the school was too fast-paced, with a focus on academic scores and data. Different reasons
were ascribed to aspects of the culture that impeded RTI implementation. Some participants
touched on a weak understanding of RTI. Participant 5 stated,
It’s a reflection on you if you refer students to learning support, culture of shaming if
students need support. There is also a passing-the-buck culture to learning support. The
whole school has a poor understanding of tiers.
Similarly, Participant 8 also felt that “We are not clear about what we are supposed to do,
we don’t talk about RTI, people don’t know what it is or how it works. Supposed to be
embedded in what we do, but it’s an add-on.”
Participants ventured to guess the reason for the culture at RDIS and its impact on RTI
implementation. Participant 9 felt that this was a problem with the large turnover and that the
new teachers had not heard of Tier 1, 2 or 3. Participant 1 thought that it had something to do
79

with the large size of the school that made communication tricky and with everyone being on the
same page. Participant 11 discussed a lack of consistency and that different teams worked in
different ways, even at the same grade level. Participant 10 said, “It has something to do with the
culture of being on the go with no solid reflections or check-in or the effort to necessarily make
anything better-on to the next things and on to the next thing.”
The feeling of being overwhelmed by too many initiatives was also echoed by
Participants 6 and 13. Participant 13 discussed having many things on teachers’ plates and that it
was hard to fit in anything else and no time to plan. Participant 12 felt that the fast pace and short
blocks for reading, writing and math put constraints on the time to do RTI. They suggested that
RDIS needed to prioritize what was important.
Document Analysis. The document discussed the institutional commitment to focus on
student learning and the mission of extraordinary care. It mentioned the commitment to be
inclusive as possible while simultaneously meeting students’ needs and keeping academic rigor.
It stated that the culture was to focus on excellence, extraordinary care, and possibilities. It noted
the commitment to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout the school. However, it
also noted the disconnect in understanding and a lack of preparedness to practice an RTI model
with fidelity among faculty.
Summary. The influence that teachers need to be part of a culture of trust and
accountability where there is collective responsibility for student learning, and a culture that
aligns with collaboration, values equity and social justice was found to be a need in interviews
and also indirectly in the document analysis.

80

Organizational Influences-Policies, Processes and Procedures
Influence 15: RTI Efforts Are Led by a Leadership Team/Task Force That Creates a Doable
Plan, Communicates With Stakeholders and Evaluates Its Effectiveness Regularly
Interview Findings. When asked which group of individuals is responsible for leading
out RTI efforts, only seven out of 13 subjects named an administrator (Participants 1, 5, 6, 8, 9,
10, and 13). Most participants, like Participant 2, thought that there did not seem to be a group
charged with RTI implementation. Participant 13 thought RTI was led by every homeroom
teacher, learning support paired with principals. Participant 5 similarly named learning support
and administrators and said that they could not put their finger on who was at the helm. Several
participants thought that it had been started by administrators but was now left to teachers and
hands-on-deck people. Participant 12, who is a team leader, said,
It is left entirely up to grade-level teams and varies from grade level to grade level. It’s put
on the PLC coordinator to decide the structure, time allocated, and they may call upon
small PLC leads. Don’t know that admin says that it has to be done and done a certain way.
Not received guidance and instruction, not that I am aware of in my time here.
When asked what support they had received from this group to implement RTI in their role,
several participants felt that they had been given no support (Participants 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and
12). Two participants thought that data days had been useful (Participants 5 and 10). Participant
3 mentioned that they had learned about RTI through book and chapter studies and several
credited PLC presentations and colleagues, including work done by learning support
(Participants 2, 4, 5, and 13). Participant 7 said, “Nothing I can put my finger on because it kinda
evolved. The PLC leaders worked on it from 8–10 years ago, and we just continued.” Participant
9, who was a PLC leader, stated,
81

I was happy that there was no support because it allowed me to play around with different
models, and we were allowed to let this evolve. In some ways, I am thankful we had the
freedom to make changes based on team feedback. The downfall is that not all grade levels
are doing it. Everyone’s doing it differently. I think there needs to be someone saying what
are the bare minimums. What’s tight across K–5? What are some things you can be
flexible on?
When asked how this group evaluated the effectiveness of RTI and often they had been
asked for feedback, all 13 participants felt that the group did not evaluate the effectiveness of
RTI. A few participants said that evaluation was incidental and ad hoc. Participants 11 and 1 felt
that there were no outside evaluations, just anecdotal conversations between teachers. Participant
12 claimed they were not sure if they had been asked for feedback on RTI because they were
unaware of who led RTI at RDIS. Participant 3 said,
Don’t know if that group has a measurable scale to measure effectiveness across grade
levels. Going from grade level to grade level, I don’t see vertical alignment. Maybe in the
first 2 years, but I haven’t been asked formally in the past 4 years.
Participant 7, who was a team leader, had this to say, “I have not been asked. Perhaps previous
PLC coordinators were asked, but not me this year.”
Participants 9 and 8 felt that RTI was only evaluated by teachers and PLCs. Participant
10 stated, “I don’t think we’ve had time to build in a lot of reflection. Now and then, PLC leaders
will talk about it, but as a whole group of teachers, there has been a lack of reflection and
improvement.”
When asked how, if at all, feedback on the current state of RTI implementation was
communicated to staff, all 13 participants indicated that this was not done. Only three
82

participants (Participants 5, 4, and 13) mentioned the support services review. Participant 13
said, “Not the current buzzword, so don’t think we are collecting it. Maybe the learning support
review. Don’t know if it focused on RTI but more on our model of learning. They collected some
feedback last year.” Participant 9 felt that there was no communication about RTI with teachers.
In a similar vein, Participant 12 said, “It’s not [being communicated]. It’s very grade-level driven
by the team.”
Document Findings. The document noted the need for quality assurance of
programming (Fidelity and Evaluation). It discussed the need to conduct a yearly program
assessment using an MTSS rubric. However, the need for clear leadership was not discussed.
Summary. The influence that RTI efforts should be led by a leadership team/task force
that creates a doable plan, communicates with stakeholders, and evaluates its effectiveness
regularly was found to be a need in interviews and partially so in the review. It is a need.
Influence 16: Teachers Need to Work in a Systems-Level Environment Where RTI Procedures
Are Systematically Implemented Across the School
Interview Findings. When participants were asked how, if at all, RDIS ensured that RTI
procedures were systematically implemented across the school, only two participants felt this
was being done (Participants 6 and 4). One spoke to the structures in place in their grade level.
Participant 6 said, “I can only speak for my grade level. There is a structure in place. There is a
schedule. There are individuals who do RTI who are involved in meetings around students, like
data day.” One participant felt that certain things, like the language used and the idea of
intensifying or decreasing services, had become consistent. Participant 4 said,
The idea that a 6–8 week cycle has become part of the culture, and everyone uses that
language of kid chats and interventions. Let’s try 6 weeks, come back, and intensify or
83

reduce that type of learning. Main thing is we try that intervention, see how they
responded. We intensify if they don’t respond. I feel we are at that stage now. To my
knowledge, we are consistent, but we work in silos, and I don’t necessarily know what
others do, but I feel the counselors I have worked with are using that same language of
Tier 1 and Tier 2.
The other 11 participants did not feel that there was much consistency. Participant 13 stated,
“Learning support is consistent, I guess, but not Tier 2 in the classroom.” Participant 12 said,
Very inconsistent across the school. Assuming it is my assumption, the office of learning is
in charge of RTI. Not heard directly from them. They are busy, got a lot going on across
the school, and when we do hear from them, it’s not centered around RTI.
Participant 8 felt that systems had broken down:
I don’t even know what the systematic processes are. I used to know. I used to know when
kids needed help. I knew exactly what to do and how to get them the help they need. Now,
[I do not].
Document Findings. The report mentioned that while support structures, such as student
support meetings and social-emotional learning staffing (kid chats), are in place, each is
structured and organized differently across grade levels and divisions. Vertical alignment and
systemic practices and processes were noted as areas for growth.
Summary. The influence that teachers need to work in a systems-level environment
where RTI procedures are systematically implemented across the school was found to be a need
in both interviews and the review document.

84

Organizational Influences-Time, Finances, People
Influence 17: Teachers Need Time to Work Collaboratively as a PLC to Plan for RTI
Implementation
Interview Findings. When asked if teachers felt they had sufficient time to collaborate
and plan for RTI implementation, ten out of 13 participants felt the time was insufficient
(Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13). Three participants felt that PLC time was filled up
with other competing initiatives. Participant 7 said, “We have small PLC time to collaborate and
plan, but there is less time because there are so many initiatives going on, so small PLC time has
reduced along the way.” Participant 12 stated,
We need to have the time. Need to have time set aside for small PLCs to have
conversations to collaborate, look at student work, analyze the data, group students.
Every year we say we want more small PLC time because we realize it’s valuable, and
the calendar gets filled up so fast, and we have a hard time setting aside the time to do it.
Participant 2 said,
We try, but our PLC calendars are jam-packed. Even though before a new AB block
cycle, we use Google Sheets to add names and skills, there isn’t much time to ask
questions or collaborate in terms of what we will be doing or share resources or get help
from other teachers. It ends at dividing kids and putting them in groups.
Participant 4 said they basically had hallway conversations to get planning done.
Participant 10 felt it would be nice to have more planning time but expressed concerns that those
in leadership roles got pulled out after school on all days, not just Monday, the day assigned for
coordinating schoolwide efforts.
85

Two participants thought time was sufficient. Participant 5 disagreed with not having
enough planning time and thought the problem was that of the culture. They said, “Yes and no.
Amazing amount of planning time at RDIS, but people work in silos. Need culture shift from
my, my, my to our, our, our.” Participant 9 agreed: “I think we have the time. We need to have it
more structured to be more specific. If we use Tuesdays and Thursdays the right way, we have
enough time.”
Document Findings. The review document did not mention the issue of not having
sufficient time to collaborate.
Summary. The influence that teachers need time to work collaboratively as a PLC to
plan for RTI implementation came up as a need in the interview but was not explored in the
review. This is an issue for further study.
Influence 18: Teachers Need Continuous Professional Development in How to Implement
RTI
Interview Findings. When asked about training in RTI, 11 participants did not have any
formal training in how to implement RTI (Participants 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13). The
training that did occur took place many years before this study. Only two participants, both PLC
leaders, had attended school-sponsored PLC conferences and an RTI conference. One described
the PLC conference as impactful, especially the keynote and the work around unpacking power
standards, but the other one at RDIS was described as ineffective. Other participants said that
training, if any, had been mostly in their PLCs or staff meetings or through reading books.
Subject 2 said, “No training in how to use RTI. I was just told this is how it’s done. Never
actually done RTI in any other school.” Participant 10 stated, “We have had staff meetings where
they have gone over the tiers and their beliefs toward it, but there hasn’t been much of a focus
86

because it’s implemented differently on all the grade levels.” Participants 5 and 6 mentioned that
their past teaching experiences with differentiating instruction helped them implement RTI, and
these did not happen through RDIS. Participant 5 said,
I learned about RTI through my own research, not clearly explained to me at RDIS. I did
a lot of differentiation in my home country, which is essential in Tier 1. Zero training on
RTI from [RDIS] other than one PLC meeting.
Document Finding. The document discussed a need for PD and coaching opportunities
for educators regarding differentiated Tier 1 instruction and a range of interventions. In addition,
PD in progress monitoring was also identified as a need.
Summary. The influence that teachers need continuous PD in how to implement RTI
was found to be a need in both the interview and the document.
Influence 19: Teachers Need Access to Scientifically Validated Intervention Material to Meet
Needs of Students Working Below Grade Level
Interview Findings. The 11 classroom teachers who were asked this question did not
feel they had access to scientifically validated interventions. Participants 1, 6, 7 and 8 were
unsure if current curricula were scientifically validated. Participant 5 said, “Don’t have any,
don’t know where to find them, so I fall back on what I know.” Participant 12 asserted, “Not had
these. Curriculum chosen by the school is wordy. It takes a lot of time to get through them and
makes it hard to do small groups.” Participant 1, however, had other concerns:
I am concerned about the shift from a more constructivist approach in schools to a more
behaviorist approach with the Science of Reading. Workshop model works for most
children, and for the other small percentage, it’s one-on-one that makes the biggest
87

difference. I feel cynical about scientifically validated interventions. Teachers don’t know
if interventions are scientifically validated.
At least three participants (Participants 6, 9, and 11) expressed an interest in learning more about
scientifically validated interventions. The two learning support teachers (Participants 4 and 6)
felt that they had access to scientifically validated interventions in their role. Participant 4 stated,
[The RDIS] is well-resourced, more so than any other school I have worked at. Pretty
much any resource I want, I can get which is amazing. Having that abundance of resources
has helped me as a practitioner to look at different things, try different things, purchase
different material.
Participant 2 expressed concerns about trained people assigned to help during RTI blocks:
I do have [scientifically validated interventions] because of my role, but I don’t think
everyone has that. If we have all hands on deck, then do they feel comfortable in
administering or doing certain types of interventions? Their time is limited, and it needs to
be targeted and specific.
Document Findings. The review document found a need to identify Tier 2 and 3
interventions that could be implemented in the general education classroom and provide PD for
implementation.
Summary. The influence that teachers need access to scientifically validated intervention
material to meet students’ needs working below grade level was found to be a need in both
interviews and the review document.
Influence 20: Teachers Need to Have a Schedule That Allows Them to Implement RTI
Interview Finding. When asked if teachers had a schedule that allowed them to
implement RTI, only four out of 13 participants felt this was true (Participants 1, 2, 3, and 8).
88

Participant 8 felt time was sufficient. However, most participants felt that time was insufficient.
Participant 12 said, “Time is an issue. Blocks are too short; Curriculum is so wordy that it takes a
lot of time to get through the Tier 1 curriculum whole class.” Participant 13 felt that the time was
insufficient to pull as many small groups as they would like.
Participant 5 asserted, “I don’t like the schedule. I am constrained by students learning
for EAL and learning support. Since I am starting and stopping, students can’t get in the flow.
It’s hard to get through the time.” A teacher who had taught in multiple grade levels said, “The
schedule in Kindergarten was more conducive to plan and implement RTI as the content isn’t
fast-paced. In grade one, I was constantly stressed about time.” Even the learning support
teachers felt time was insufficient. Participant 4 said, “No, while looking at math interventions,
they say that you must use X number of times for X number of minutes and the blocks we have
are not that long.”
Document Analysis. No mention was made in the report about scheduling challenges.
Summary. The influence that teachers need to have a schedule that allows them to do
RTI was a need in interviews but was not examined in the report. This is an area for further
study. Table 9 summarizes KMO factors studies and indicates which factors were needs and
which were found to be assets via the data analysis.

89

Table 9
KMO Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Influence Interview
findings
Document
findings
Summary
Declarative factual knowledge
Teachers should be able to name the essential
components of RTI
Need Not explored Further study
needed
Teachers should be able to understand the
rationale behind RTI
Need Not explored Further study
needed
Teachers need to understand the multiple tiers
of RTI, their role in each tier in their context
and which tier is best suited to their needs.
Need Need Need
Procedural knowledge
Teachers in a PLC need to clarify exactly what
each student must learn and the sequencing
and pacing of this content.
Need Asset Need
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
identify which students need help relative to
peers or benchmark assessments.
Need Need Need
Teachers need to know how to differentiate
core curriculum to meet the needs of students.
Asset Need Need
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
develop strategies and ideas that build on
strengths and address weaknesses in learning.
They need to learn to implement empirically
validated instruction and interventions.
Need Need Need
Teachers in a PLC need to know how to
interpret data to change instruction. They
need to know if interventions are working
and how to progress monitor students.
Need Need Need
Metacognitive knowledge
Teachers reflect on their beliefs and attitudes
around RTI and student learning.
Asset Asset Asset
Teachers reflect on the extent to which they
worked collaboratively with other teachers to
support student learning.
Need Need Need
Motivational influences
Task value motivation influence: Teachers
believe that RTI is work worth doing given
costs in terms of time and effort.
Asset Not explored Further study
needed
Self-efficacy motivation influence: Teachers
feel prepared to implement RTI.
Need Not explored Further study
needed
90

Influence Interview
findings
Document
findings
Summary
Self-efficacy motivation influence: Teachers
feel confident in their ability to implement
scientifically based interventions.
Need Not explored Further study
needed
Organizational influences
Organizational influences (culture): Teachers
need to be part of a culture of trust and
accountability. The culture aligns with
collaboration and values equity and social
justice. There is collective responsibility for
student learning.
Need Asset Further study
needed
Organizational influences (policies, processes,
and procedures): RTI efforts are led by a
leadership team/task force that creates a
doable plan, communicates with stakeholders,
and evaluates its effectiveness regularly.
Need Partially
noted as need
Need
Organizational influences (policies, processes,
and procedures): Teachers need to work in a
system-level environment where RTI
procedures are systematically implemented
across the school.
Need Need Need
Organizational influences (time, finances,
people): Teachers need time to work
collaboratively as a PLC to plan for RTI
implementation.
Need Not explored Further study
needed
Organizational influences (time, finances,
people): Teachers need continuous
professional development in how to
implement RTI.
Need Need Need
Organizational influences (time, finances,
people): Teachers need access to
scientifically validated intervention material
to meet the needs of students working below
grade level.
Need Need Need
Organizational influences (time, finances,
people): Teachers need to have a schedule
that allows them to implement RTI.
Need Not explored Further study
needed

91

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This study examined the KMO influences impacting the implementation of RTI at RDIS,
a private international school in Southeast Asia. An adapted gap analysis framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008) was utilized in the study to evaluate the degree to which the organization was
meeting its goal of implementing RTI by examining KMO influences on the problem of practice.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are learning support and homeroom teachers’ current levels of knowledge and
motivation in implementing an RTI Framework at the Red Dot International School
in Grades K–2 (RDIS)?
2. What are the organizational factors that influence the implementation of an RTI
framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
3. What are recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO
resources for the implementation of an RTI framework with fidelity at the RDIS in
Grades K–2?
A semi-structured interview was used to ascertain teacher perceptions of KMO
influences. Data were triangulated through an analysis of a report of the school’s audit of support
services. Results and findings from Chapter Four are used in this chapter to offer solutions and
recommendations. The purpose of this chapter is to suggest a solution-focused implementation
plan based on the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

92

Organizational Context and Mission
The RDIS’s mission is to provide each student an exceptional American educational
experience with a global perspective. The school’s vision is that students will become
extraordinary thinkers prepared to meet the challenges of a changing world. The school’s vision
is also to become a world leader in education. The school aims to build a sense of purpose in
learning and joy among students while preparing them for a fast-changing global economy where
their success will depend on their ability to learn new skills, take on new challenges, and work
with diverse people. RDIS values social-emotional growth as much as academic growth. It seeks
that growth in a diverse community rich in equity and inclusion. RDIS seeks to personalize
learning for every child to meet their unique learning needs.
The RDIS wishes to be an innovative learning community of educators where adults are
committed to their growth and learning. The school aspires to attract, retain, and develop talented
educators. The RDIS’s professional practice is based on PLCs, which consist of groups of
teachers working collaboratively in collective inquiry and action research to achieve better
results for students. The PLCs have a collective responsibility to ensure students are showing
growth.
RDIS started implementing the RTI framework around 2013. At the time of
implementation, RDIS worked with a professional organization to train its PLC leaders. The
school provided PD to staff through conferences, workshops, book studies and in-house training.
Since then, being a large international school, there has been significant staff turnover. Other
than a support services review in 2021–22, the school has not taken significant steps to examine
the current state of RTI implementation. There is little clarity about what staff members think
about RTI and the factors influencing its implementation.
93

Organizational Performance Goal
The overarching goal of RDIS is to promote consistency of high-quality teaching in every
classroom to support students’ learning needs, including those who need additional support and
those who are ready for extension or acceleration. Thus, RDIS aims to establish collective
responsibility for student learning by aligning schoolwide philosophy, systems and procedures
for tiered instruction and creating an equitable system for distributing resources. The school
wishes to streamline and improve its service delivery of the RTI framework.
Description of the Stakeholder Group of This Study
The stakeholders were classroom teachers and learning support teachers in Grades K–22.
They were selected because RTI is often easiest to implement in these early grades, and lessons
learned can be used to improve RTI across the organization.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholders need to be able to work together in PLCs to implement RTI with
fidelity as measured by the CLR-RTI Rubric. This goal is tied to the larger organizational goal of
establishing collective responsibility for student learning. RDIS wishes to streamline and
improve service delivery systems to fully implement the RTI framework and promote
consistency of high-quality teaching to support the learning needs of all students.
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
This section examines and prioritizes the needs of KMO influences that emerged from
the findings. High-priority needs are subsequently connected to context-specific
recommendations.

94

Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction The four types of knowledge are declarative factual, declarative
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This study examined
the influence of all four types of knowledge in the implementation of RTI. Factual knowledge
influences included knowing the essential components of RTI. Conceptual knowledge influences
include understanding the rationale behind RTI, what the RTI tiers mean, the role of teachers in
each tier in their context, and which tier is best suited to their students’ needs. Procedural
knowledge influences include the need to clarify what each student must learn and the
sequencing and pacing of this content, knowing how to identify which students need help
relative to peers or benchmark assessments, knowing how to differentiate core curriculum to
meet students’ needs, how to develop strategies that build on strengths and address weaknesses
in learning, learning how to implement empirically validated instruction and interventions and
how to interpret assessment data and monitor if interventions are working. Metacognitive
influences include teachers reflecting on their beliefs and attitudes around student learning and
the extent to which they worked collaboratively with other teachers to support students.
The knowledge influences examined were factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. Individual interviews and document analysis were used to validate findings. The
research findings indicate that factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge were needs or
partial needs for participants. One metacognitive need was an asset. Table 10 indicates a priority
level for each validated influence to achieve the organization’s goals and evidence-based
principles that support these recommendations. Following the table, each influence is discussed
with its associated principle and the specific recommendations based on supporting literature.

95

Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or low
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Factual knowledge
Teachers should be
able to name the
essential
components of RTI.
Need High How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
apply what they
know (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).
Provide targeted
learning
opportunities
that demonstrate
and ask teachers
to name
essential
components that
should be seen
in a school that
implements an
RTI framework.
Conceptual knowledge
Teachers should be
able to understand
the rationale behind
RTI.
Need High Active learning
engagements,
rather than
passive
processing,
encourage
learning
(Rueda, 2011).

Engage an RTI
expert to
provide a
rationale as to
why RTI is
important.
Engage in group
discussions to
identify and
understand
important
points.
Teachers need to
understand the
multiple tiers of
RTI, their role in
each tier in their
context and which
tier is best suited to
their student’s
needs.
Need High How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
apply what they
know (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006)
Facilitating
transfer
promotes
Provide targeted
training and
readings to
understand the
multiple tiers
and their roles in
each tier.
Provide job aids
with worked
examples of
students who
require different
tiers of support.
96

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or low
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
learning
(Mayer, 2011)
Connect to prior
knowledge
(Mayer, 2011).
In training,
small PLC
teams of
teachers will be
afforded time
and corrective
feedback to
decide which
tier of support is
best suited to
their students’
needs and why.
Procedural knowledge
Teachers in a PLC
need to clarify
exactly what each
student must learn
and the sequencing
and pacing of this
content.
Need High Performance is
increased when
goals are clear,
concrete, and
current and
limited in nature
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Collaborative
teams of
teachers will
receive training
on how to
identify and
unpack power
standards using
a protocol, and
existing
standards will
be pruned for
endurance,
leverage, and
readiness.
Teachers in a PLC
need to know how
to identify which
students need help
relative to peers or
benchmark
assessments.
Need High Managing
intrinsic load by
segmenting
complex
material into
simpler parts
and pretraining,
among other
strategies,
enables learning
to be enhanced
(Kirschner et
al., 2006)
Facilitating
transfer
Teaching teams
will receive
targeted training
on
understanding
the components
of the universal
screener and
which students
require further
diagnostic and
assessments.
Teachers will
implement such
assessments
97

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or low
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
promotes
learning
(Mayer, 2011)
with scaffolding
and coaching.
Teachers need to
know how to
differentiate core
curriculum to meet
the needs of
students.
Need High To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating
them, and know
when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006)
Provide targeted
training,
instruction,
sufficient
scaffolding and
worked
examples to
help teachers to
differentiate
instruction and
provide access
to all learners.
Teachers in a PLC
need to know how
to develop
strategies and ideas
that build on
strengths and
address weaknesses
in learning.

Teachers must learn
to implement
empirically
validated
instruction and
interventions.
Need High To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating
them, and know
when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006)
Teachers need
targeted training
on improving
the use of
evidence-based
interventions
and how to
implement
shared
responsibility
for student
learning. They
need to apply
this in a small
PLC with
coaching and
use action
research to
improve
implementing
such
interventions.
Teachers in a PLC
need to know how
to interpret data to
change instruction.
They need to know
Need High Managing
intrinsic load by
segmenting
complex
material into
Hold monthly data
days where
teams of
teachers will
analyze student
98

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or low
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
if interventions are
working-how to
progress monitor
students.
simpler parts
and pretraining,
among other
strategies,
enables learning
to be enhanced
(Kirschner et
al., 2006)
Facilitating
transfer
promotes
learning
(Mayer, 2011)

data for
strengths and
challenges,
identify actions
to address needs
and follow up
on action steps.
Educators will
engage in data-
based
professional
learning
opportunities,
frequent
observations and
feedback that
advance skillful
use of progress
monitoring.
Metacognitive knowledge
Teachers can reflect
on their beliefs and
attitudes around
RTI and student
learning.
Asset Low Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners set
goals, monitor
their
performance,
and evaluate
their progress
toward these
goals (Ambrose
et al., 2010)
PLC team
members engage
in reflect-
change-grow
cycles of inquiry
where they can
collaboratively
reflect on where
they are with
organizational
RTI goals
Teachers reflect on
the extent to which
they worked
collaboratively with
other teachers to
support student
learning.
Need Low The use of
metacognitive
strategies
facilitates
learning.
(Baker, 2005)
Have teachers
reflect regularly
on how data
days and RTI
blocks worked
and how they
can be
improved.

99

Factual Knowledge
The assumed influences to assess factual knowledge were that teachers should be able to
name essential key components of RTI that reflect an RTI systems understanding (Castro-
Villarreal et al., 2014). Factual knowledge plays an important role in accurately identifying and
diagnosing students’ learning needs within an RTI framework. According to Fuchs and Fuchs
(2005), key concepts of RTI are that it is multi-tiered, involves using universal screening,
involves early intervention and prevention, identifies at-risk, need-based and/or struggling
students, has evidence-based intervention and instruction, students’ response to the intervention
is measured through progress monitoring, and it involves a problem-solving collaborative
approach. Only 7% of teachers interviewed from RDIS could name at least three of these key
concepts. Building knowledge of RTI essential components was deemed a high priority. Schraw
and McCrudden (2006) found that how individuals organize knowledge influences how they
learn and apply what they know. The recommendation is to provide readings and targeted
learning opportunities around key concepts of RTI and have teachers connect this to their current
practices.
Conceptual Knowledge
One assumed influence to assess conceptual knowledge is that teachers should
understand the purpose of RTI. Often change initiatives describe what needs to be done rather
than providing compelling reasons for the change (Buffum et al., 2012). Fullan (2001) stated that
moral purpose is essential for leadership to harness for lasting institutional change. This sense of
moral purpose could be a driver for RTI. Teachers must understand why RTI is important in
helping students learn at high levels and be prepared for college and the workplace. To put in the
effort to make the challenging adaptive changes required to implement RTI, teachers need to
100

understand that RTI is equity-minded educational reform because it helps all students access
learning and it helps prevent the overrepresentation of children of minorities in special education
(King & Coughlin, 2016; Sabnis et al., 2020). This influence was deemed a high priority. Some
of the educators at RDIS who persevered in building an RTI framework were inspired by outside
consultants hired by the organization in 2013. Given that there has been a great deal of turnover
in the organization, one way the organization could get newer staff on board is to have these
expert consultants do face-to-face or online talks discussing why RTI is important. Teachers’
teams could then work on distilling key information from these talks by experts.
Another assumed influence to assess conceptual knowledge is that teachers should
understand the multiple tiers of RTI, their role in each tier in their context and which tier best
suits their students. A survey conducted by Vujnovic et al. (2014) showed that less than half of
teachers could identify which tier of instruction would most benefit students, given a range of
students with varied reading abilities. Similarly, during the interviews, only 55% of classroom
teachers correctly identified the tier of support needed by a fictitious student. While there was
confusion around what each tier was, at RDIS, 100% of teachers were clear about which tier or
tiers they were responsible for overseeing. Findings showed that understanding tiers was a need,
and the most confusion appears to be around Tier I and Tier 2. The recommendation is that the
organization provide targeted training and readings to understand the multiple tiers and teachers’
roles in each tier. Job aids with worked examples of students who require different tiers of
support would support teachers in identifying which tiers would help these case studies.
Facilitating transfer promotes learning (Mayer, 2011) and therefore, small PLC teams of teachers
should be afforded time and corrective feedback to use examples from job aids to decide which
tier of support is best suited to their students’ needs.
101

Procedural Knowledge
Several procedural knowledge influences were found in the literature. One assumed
influence to assess procedural knowledge was that teachers in a PLC need to clarify exactly what
each student must learn and the sequencing and pacing of this content. This was identified as a
need. A lack of consistency in using powers standards was seen across the different grade levels.
Participants indicated that teachers were either not aware of power standards, noted that these
had been identified many years prior and required revisiting, or they had not yet been identified
in the core subject areas of reading, writing, and math. Performance increases when goals are
clear, concrete, current, and limited (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, the recommendation to
address this gap is that collaborative teams of teachers receive training on identifying and
unpacking power standards using a protocol, and standards should be re-examined for endurance,
leverage, and readiness.
Another assumed procedural knowledge influence was that teachers need to know how to
differentiate core curriculum to meet students’ needs. This was identified as a high need.
Managing intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into simpler parts and pretraining,
among other strategies, enhances learning (Kirschner et al., 2006). Therefore, one
recommendation is to provide targeted training, instruction, sufficient scaffolding, and worked
examples to help teachers through a process of how differentiating instruction to provide access
for all students during unit planning. This is particularly relevant as the demography at RDIS is
evolving with more English language learners, and several teachers expressed that meeting such
students’ needs was challenging. Instructional routines must be perceived as helpful for all
students, not just students with disabilities, and furthermore, training must be specific, practical,
and fit within the details of day-to-day classroom instruction (Gersten et al., 1997).
102

Other procedural knowledge influences are that teachers in a PLC need to know how to
develop strategies and ideas that build on strengths and address weaknesses in learning and that
they must know how to implement empirically validated instruction and interventions. A
majority of teachers report being unable to identify Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions and have little
knowledge of evidence-based reading practices (Spear-Swerling & Cheesman, 2012). Teachers
also were largely unfamiliar with evidence-based interventions. Teachers need targeted training
on improving their use of evidence-based interventions and how to implement shared
responsibility for student learning. They need coaching to apply this in a small PLC and use
action research to improve their use and delivery of these interventions to students grouped
according to similar needs.
Yet another assumed procedural knowledge influence is that teachers in a PLC need to
know how to interpret data to change instruction. They need to know if interventions are working
and how to monitor their students’ progress. Teachers have reported having little knowledge of
what to do with assessment information or how to use it to make instructional decisions to help
their students (Spear-Swerling & Cheesman, 2012; Wilcox et al., 2013). This study supported
this finding, and this influence was found to be a high need.
Managing intrinsic load by segmenting complex material into simpler parts and
pretraining, among other strategies, enhances learning (Kirschner et al., 2006). To fill this gap in
interpreting data, the recommendation is to create processes and allot time (data days) for
collecting and analyzing student work and formative/summative assessment throughout units in
small PLC groups. During frequent data days, with support and coaching, teams of teachers will
analyze student data for strengths and challenges, identify actions to address needs and follow up
103

on action steps. Educators will engage in data-based professional learning opportunities, frequent
observations and feedback that advance the skillful use of progress monitoring.
Metacognitive Knowledge
An assumed influence to assess metacognitive knowledge is that teachers can reflect on
their beliefs and attitudes around RTI and student learning. It is essential for teachers to have a
growth mindset and not a fixed mindset around students’ ability for adaptive changes to occur
(Novak & Rodriguez, 2023). This was found to be an asset at RDIS. The recommendation is that
PLC team members should engage in reflect-change-grow cycles of inquiry where they can
collaboratively reflect on where they are with organizational RTI goals.
Another assumed influence to assess metacognitive knowledge is that teachers should
reflect on the extent to which they work collaboratively with other teachers. Collective
responsibility for student learning is one of the four Cs of RTI (Buffum et al., 2012). This was
identified as a low-priority need, but the recommendation is to continue to build self-reflection
around data days and RTI blocks, as learning and motivation are enhanced when learners set
goals, monitor their performance, and evaluate their progress (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Motivation Recommendations
Motivation is required to complete goals (Rueda, 2011). This study’s findings validated
the motivational influences of task value and self-efficacy. These influences were studied
through individual interviews. The findings indicate that task value is an asset, but self-efficacy
is a need. Table 11 shows the motivation influences, their priority level, and evidence-based
principles to support the recommendations. The sections that follow the table elaborate on the
influences, the associated principle, and specific recommendations.

104

Table 11
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
motivational
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Task value
Teachers believe
that RTI is work
worth doing given
costs in terms of
time and effort.
Asset Low Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006).
Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and
utility value of the
work can help with
the development of
positive values in
learners (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich,
2003).
To bring newer
teachers on board
with RTI,
underline the
moral purpose of
RTI and have
well-respected
teachers affirm as
to how RTI
impacted student
learning in their
classes and
impacted their
practice.
Self-efficacy
Teachers feel
prepared to
implement RTI.
Need Low When individuals
exercise agency at
the group level and
perceive collective
effort, motivation is
enhanced through
resilience and
performance
(Bandura, 2012)
Ensuring that
teachers in a PLC
have procedural
knowledge of
how to
implement RTI
will help build
self-efficacy.
Teachers feel
confident in their
ability to
implement
scientifically
based
interventions.
Need High When individuals
exercise agency at
the group level and
perceive collective
effort, motivation is
enhanced through
resilience and
performance
(Bandura, 2012)
Provide structures
for PLCs to plan
and implement
scientifically
based
interventions
aligned with Tier
1 curricula.
Create communities
of practice where
learning between
and among
teachers occurs in
105

Assumed
motivational
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
the context of
reflection on
action (Butler et
al., 2004). Create
inbuild systems
to monitor
individual and
collective self-
efficacy.

Task Value Motivation
The assumed influence of task value was that teachers believe that RTI work is worth
doing relative to cost. Eccles (2006) found that when learners value tasks, learning and
motivation are improved. This study found that participants felt that RTI was worth doing
relative to time and effort, making this influence an asset. Eccles (2206) and Pintrich (2003)
found that rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the work can
help with developing positive values in learners. To continue to capitalize on this asset, the
recommendation is to continue to underscore the moral value of RTI and get new teachers on
board by having well-respected teachers share how implementing an RTI framework impacted
student learning in their classes and improved their practice.
Self-Efficacy Motivation
The assumed influence to assess self-efficacy was that teachers feel confident in their
ability to implement RTI. In this study, about 50% of teachers had high self-efficacy to
implement RTI but wanted more organizational support and PD. Interestingly, while teachers
had high confidence in their own abilities, they had less confidence in the abilities of hands-on-
106

deck staff who were not teachers, such as counselors, technology coordinators and instructional
assistants. This influence was therefore found to be a need. When individuals exercise agency at
the group level and perceive collective effort, motivation is enhanced through resilience and
performance (Bandura, 2012). The recommendation is to build procedural knowledge of
implementing RTI in a PLC where teachers have to work together to implement this framework.
Tackling procedural knowledge first should also simultaneously build self-efficacy, particularly
in a context where RTI is valued. Teachers need to not just have a conceptual understanding of
what RTI is; they also have to have the right tools and organizational support to implement RTI.
The second assumed influence to assess self-efficacy was that teachers feel confident in
their ability to implement scientifically based interventions. This was found to be a need in
homeroom teachers but an asset in learning support teachers. The vast majority of homeroom
teachers were unaware of what evidence-based interventions were and unsure if interventions
used in their classrooms had an evidence base. An organizational recommendation to fill this gap
would be to ensure that all curricula adopted by the school have a strong evidence base. Bandura
(2012) found that when individuals exercise agency at the group level and perceive collective
effort, motivation is enhanced through resilience and performance. To build self-efficacy in
using such interventions, provide structures for PLCs to plan and implement scientifically based
interventions aligned with Tier 1 curricula. RDIS should create communities of practice where
learning between and among teachers occurs in the context of reflection on action (Butler et al.,
2004). It is also important to create systems to monitor individual and collective self-efficacy
during this process.

107

Organizational Recommendations
The data confirmed three organizational influences on the problem of practice. Firstly,
culture was a powerful organizational influence. Secondly, policies, processes and procedures
were found to have a significant impact. Finally, resources such as time, finances and people
were also recognized as influential factors. These influences were validated through interviews
and document analysis. Table 12 shows the priority level for each validated influence in
achieving organizational goals and the research-based principles underlying these
recommendations. The section following the table presents each priority influence, the associated
principle, and context-specific recommendations.

Table 12
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organizational
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Influence of culture
Teachers need to be part
of a culture of trust
and accountability.
The culture aligns
with collaboration and
values equity and
social justice. There is
collective
responsibility for
student learning.
Need High A common vision is
essential to direct
change (Kotter,
2011).
Key elements for
successful change
are found in
connecting a
compelling vision,
clear processes to
reach the goal,
motivational
support and
assessment of
results that reflect
the vision and
connected goals
Provide a compelling
case for change by
building a shared
vision and leaders’
capacity to support
change.
Create a multi-year
doable plan and
develop capacity to
address individual
student gaps.
Build consensus to
support RTI and
build shared
knowledge, rather
than relying on
regulations, and
establish mutual
108

Assumed
organizational
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
accountability for
student results
(Buffum et al.,
2012).
Policies, procedures, processes
RTI efforts are led by a
leadership team/task
force that creates a
doable plan,
communicates with
stakeholders, and
evaluates its
effectiveness
regularly.
Need High Top management
must be
continuously
involved in the
improvement
process (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Communicate
constantly and
candidly to those
involved about
plans and progress
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Effective change
efforts ensure that
all key
stakeholders’
perspectives
inform the design
and decision-
making process
leading to the
change (Kotter,
2011)
Build a school
leadership team
that meets at least
twice a month with
diverse
representation to
unite and
coordinate RTI
efforts across grade
levels,
departments, and
subjects. (Buffum
et al., 2012)

Establish regular
communication to
all stakeholders
and have processes
in place to assess
RTI
implementation.
Create a school
intervention team
that leads the
school’s focused
micro view on
specific students
who are most at
risk (Buffum et al.,
2012).
Teachers need to work
in a systems-level
environment where
RTI procedures are
systematically
implemented across
the school.
Need High Effective
organizations
ensure that
messages, rewards,
policies, and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
Establish a clear
data-driven
identification
process for
students who
require support.
Establish clear
criteria for
109

Assumed
organizational
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
are aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
We cannot improve
at scale what we
cannot measure.
Improving
outcomes for
students requires a
robust system of
data that is
constantly
reviewed through
the improvement
process (Novak &
Rodriguez, 2023).
movement between
tiers.
Develop robust
systems to keep
track of student
data and support
teachers to
interpret data to
make instructional
decisions.
Have consistent
means to
communicate
student growth and
progress with
stakeholders.
Resources (time, finances, people)
Teachers need time to
work collaboratively
as a PLC to plan for
RTI implementation.
Need High Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources to do
their job and that if
there are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Ensure that PLC
times when
teachers need to
plan for RTI
implementation are
protected.
Similarly, ensure that
PLC time is spent
on use of
Questions 1–4
(Dufour et al.,
2006).
Revise the schedule
to ensure that there
are times when no
new instruction
takes place and use
this time for
intervention.
Ensure that there
are trained hands-
on-deck people to
consistently be
110

Assumed
organizational
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
available to
support instruction
at this time.
Teachers need
continuous
professional
development in how
to implement RTI.
Need High Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources to do
their job and that if
there are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Provide professional
development and
coaching for
educators
regarding
differentiated Tier
1 instruction,
understanding RTI
tiers, progress
monitoring and
data-based decision
making.
Teachers need access to
scientifically
validated intervention
material to meet needs
of students working
below grade level.
Need High Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources to do
their job and that if
there are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Identify scientifically
validated Tier 2
interventions that
are aligned with
research/evidence-
based Tier 1
curricula.
Provide professional
development to
homeroom teachers
in the use of such
interventions.

Culture Recommendations
The data validated one gap in the assumed organizational influence of culture. Results
indicate that there is still more work for RDIS to accomplish to establish a culture characterized
by trust, accountability, and collective responsibility for student learning. Furthermore, this
culture should be firmly grounded in equity and social justice. Participants in the study identified
the high number of initiatives teachers are expected to undertake as one of the barriers to the
111

successful implementation of RTI. Clark and Estes (2008) found that competing initiatives
distract people from persisting with important work goals. They suggested that key elements for
successful organizational change are found in connecting a compelling vision with clear
processes to reach the goal, motivational support and assessment of results that reflect the vision
and connected goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). While RDIS has taken steps toward greater diversity
and equity in its practices, the organization lacks a clear vision and doable plan for RTI
implementation. To build a culture that supports RTI implementation, the recommendation is to
provide a compelling case for change by building a shared vision and building leaders’ capacity
to support this change. Furthermore, there is a need to prune and sharpen initiatives so that the
RTI implementation plan is achievable.
Policies, Procedures and Processes
An assumed influence for policies, procedures and processes was that RTI efforts are led
by a leadership team or task force that creates a doable plan, communicates with stakeholders,
and evaluates its effectiveness regularly. The data confirmed that this was a priority need. In
2013, when RDIS first started implementing RTI, it was unclear if a task force or leadership
team was coordinating the school’s efforts. If such a task force existed, it was unclear who led it,
and the participants’ names were not revealed. No such team exists. Clark and Estes’s (2008)
recommendation is that top management must be continuously involved in the improvement
process.
Buffum et al. (2012) suggested that schools need school leadership and school
intervention teams to drive RTI implementation. The school leadership teams should be made up
of administration, representatives from teaching teams and other support staff and their primary
responsibility is to be the guiding coalition for RTI. This team takes a macro view, and it should
112

guide and not dictate. Kotter (2011) recommended considering stakeholders’ perspectives in
decision making. School leadership teams should meet at least every other week and
communicate regularly with the larger school community. In addition, RTI efforts at a micro-
level focused on students who require Tier 3 support should be led by school intervention teams
comprising school psychologists, counselors, speech therapists and special education teachers.
Another assumed influence for policies, procedures and processes was that teachers need
to work in a systems-level environment where RTI procedures are systematically implemented
across the school. This influence was found to be a need. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
effective organizations ensure that messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern the
work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of organizational goals and values.
The recommendation is for the leadership team to establish a data-driven identification process
for students who require support, have clear criteria for movement between tiers, develop
systems to monitor student data and have a consistent means to communicate student growth and
progress with stakeholders.
Resources (Time, Finances, People)
According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure that everyone has
the resources to do their job and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned
with organizational priorities. An assumed influence for resources was that teachers need time to
work collaboratively as a PLC to plan for RTI implementation. Based on this study’s findings,
this was identified as a need. A recommendation is for leadership to protect PLC times when
teachers need to plan for RTI implementation. Currently, PLCs spend much of their time on
issues unrelated to the four PLC questions (DuFour et al., 2006):
• What do we want students to learn?
113

• How will we know if they have learned it?
• What will we do if they don’t know it?
• What will we do if they already know it?
The recommendation is to ensure that PLCs spend the bulk of their time on these four
questions and revise the schedule to include times when no new instruction takes place so that
teachers can use this time for Tier 2 interventions. Related to barriers in implementing RTI,
during the interviews, several teachers expressed frustration that hands-on-deck teachers
assigned to PLCs would cancel during intervention blocks or were not qualified to work with
students in core subject areas. A recommendation is to ensure that supporting staff are not pulled
away for other duties during this time and are trained to carry out interventions.
Another assumed influence was that teachers need PD in how to implement RTI. This
finding was validated by both interviews and the document analyzed and was deemed a high
priority. The recommendation is that teachers need continuous PD and coaching in various
aspects of RTI implementation, such as differentiated Tier 1 instruction, understanding RTI tiers,
progress monitoring and data-based decision making.
The final recommendation is that teachers need access to scientifically validated
intervention material to meet the needs of students working below grade level. Novak and
Rodriguez (2023) stated that ensuring that interventions are evidence-based is required for
improved outcomes, but implementation science suggests that it requires effective
implementation as well. The recommendation is to find Tier 2 interventions aligned with Tier 1
curricula and provide PD to teachers in using these interventions with small groups of learners
who are not secure on Tier 1 formative and summative assessments.

114

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The RDIS is working toward promoting the consistency of high-quality teaching in every
classroom to support the learning needs of each student. It means to achieve this goal by
improving its service delivery of RTI. This study’s purpose was to evaluate the current state of
the implementation of RTI. The previous section suggested recommendations to fill the KMO
gaps to improve and streamline how the organization implements RTI. This section offers an
implementation and evaluation plan with recommendations.
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides a blueprint
for the implementation and evaluation plan. This plan has been adapted from the original four-
level evaluation model and uses the same four levels of evaluation as the original, except it is
designed in reverse. It starts with Level 4 (desired outcome) and works backward to Level 1
(reaction), with levels collectively providing a framework to evaluate training programs for both
quality and value.
Level 4 indicates if the organization has accomplished what it exists to do according to a
combination of its mission and vision. The intent is to develop a plan centered around leading
indicators for results and the desired outcome for learning. Level 3 measures the application of
the learning represented and the degree to which participants apply what they have learned
during training when they are back on the job. It defines critical behaviors, required drivers and
on-the-job learning. Level 2 Learning is the degree to which participants acquire the knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence, and attitude to determine if the gap between learning and behavior
has been closed. Finally, Level 1 measures participants’ reaction to the training and includes
customer satisfaction, relevance, and engagement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
115

The remaining sections present each level of the new world Kirkpatrick model and
evaluation measures for each recommendation.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 answers the question, “Is this what the organization exists to
do/deliver/contribute?” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2015, p. 5). At RDIS, Level 4 determines
if/when provided an exceptional American educational experience with a global perspective,
students are ready to become extraordinary thinkers prepared to take on the challenges of a
changing world. Every child learns at high levels and gets the support they need to thrive within
an RTI framework.
This is a broad goal that is hard to measure. Ensuring that RDIS is on target to meet the
goal requires leading indicators to bridge the gap between efforts and results. These are short-
term observations and measurements of individual initiatives and efforts that support the
organization’s mission and vision.
Table 13 shows the proposed outcomes, metrics and methods used to evaluate the results
and leading indicators of Level 4.

116

Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
RDIS teachers are world
leaders in the region and
world in applying an RTI
framework.
Number of schools visiting
RDIS to better understand
our programs and practices
relating to RTI
Number of teachers and
administrators hosting and
attending PD and
workshops related to RTI
Number of invitations to
speak at RTI conferences
Hosting RTI-related PD
events.
Visits from other schools to
study programs and
practices
Families of children who
need ELL, behavior,
speech, learning support or
extension know that the
school has policies in place
to support their children
Feedback from parents Parent coffees with a focus on
RTI and support services
available
Support services landing page
on the school website
with tiered services and
related policies explained.
Every student at RDIS
graduates with the
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to be college
ready.
Graduation rates
College admission data
Feedback from alumni
A system of tracking alumni
achievement, particularly
in the first and final years
of college and first year of
employment.
Internal outcomes
Every student at RDIS leaves
a grade level with mastery
of the power standards of
that grade level/core
subject area.
Universal screening data
Summative assessments
A robust system of data that
tracks mastery of power
standards for individuals
and groups of students.

Level 3: Behavior
Level 3 of the new world Kirkpatrick model measures the degree to which the
stakeholders of focus apply what they learned during training when they are back in their job
117

settings, which in this instance are K–2 classrooms. It consists of critical behaviors, required
drivers and on-the-job learning.
Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors are specific, observable, and measurable and will have the most
significant impact on Level 4 desired results. Table 14 specifies the metrics, methods, and timing
for evaluating these critical behaviors.

Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing of Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
Teachers will
collectively
brainstorm about
barriers to learning
during
collaborative unit
planning and plan
and provide
instruction that is
tailored to the
individual needs of
students.
Lesson plans with
structures that
support
differentiation
Rubrics and
checklists used to
observe for
differentiation
Structured
observation by
coaches,
administrators, or
peers to evaluate
implementation of
differentiated
instruction
Year 2: Weekly
during
collaborative
planning times
Teachers will focus
intervention around
foundational skills
and power
standards.
Unit plans and
assessments with
clearly indicated
power standards.
RTI blocks focused
on students not
meeting power
standards
Checks of units and
assessments by
math/ELA leaders
Observations of RTI
blocks by
administrators and
coach

Year 2: Prior to
starting units
Weekly during RTI
blocks
Teams of teachers
will analyze
universal screening
data given to all
students to identify
who might need
additional
Names of individual
students and
additional
diagnostic
assessments
Data day
spreadsheets
reviewed by
administrators
Year 2: Three times a
year
118

Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
diagnostic
assessments.
Teams of teachers
will analyze
diagnostic
assessment data
and unit test data to
identify students
who may require
targeted
interventions and
the tier of support
required during
PLC meetings.
Small PLC data
spreadsheets
Intervention plans,
individualized
education plans
(IEPs)
PLC meeting minutes Year 2: after
benchmark
assessments, unit
tests
Four times a year
around quarterly
reporting periods
Teachers will use
evidence-based
strategies and
interventions to
meet the needs of
identified students.
RTI block
spreadsheets
Observation by
coaches and
administrators
Teacher self-
assessments to
evaluate the extent
to which they are
effectively
implementing
interventions
Year 2: weekly
during RTI/AB
block
Teachers will
regularly monitor
student progress to
assess the
effectiveness of
interventions and
adjust as needed.
Progress-monitoring
data collected at
least monthly for
students in Tier 2
support and weekly
for students
receiving Tier 3
support
Tier 2 data reviewed
by small PLCs and
coaches.
Tier 2 and Tier 3 data
reviewed by grade-
level intervention
teams
Year 2: monthly
during Small PLC
meetings
Reviewed monthly by
grade-level
intervention teams
Teachers will
collaborate with
each other and
support
professionals to
ensure a
coordinated effort
to meet student
needs.
Self and peer
assessments
Teacher self-
assessments/peer
assessments to
evaluate the extent
that they are
collaborating with
each other to
identify areas for
improvement
Year 2: mid-year and
end of year

119

Required Drivers
Required drivers are processes and systems which support the enactment of the critical
behaviors. The execution and monitoring of these required drivers are the clearest indicators of
program success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These drivers and their monitoring keep the
organization accountable for on-the-job application of what is learned during training. Several
drivers have been identified to reinforce, encourage, reward and monitor the critical behaviors.
Table 15 shows the methods, timing and critical behavior supported.

Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
1, 2, 3 etc
Reinforcing
A school leadership team will
create a vision for
implementing RTI and
share this vision with all
stakeholders.
Year 1, first quarter of the
school year
1–7
The school leadership team
will carry out an RTI needs
assessment. It will be
implemented across all
grade levels and
departments.
Year 1, first quarter of the
year
1–7
The school leadership team
will create a multi-year
plan with clear indicators
for success based on the
vision and needs
assessments.
Year 1, second quarter of the
school
1–7
The school leadership team
will create a coherent and
sustainable professional
learning plan based on the
vision and needs
assessment.
Year 1, second quarter of the
school year
1–7
120

Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
1, 2, 3 etc
All administrators, coaches
and PLC leaders will be
trained in key features of
RTI.
Year 1, second quarter of the
school year
1–7
Power standards will be
identified and aligned
between grade levels in
core subject areas based on
a protocol led by
administration.
Year 1, second quarter of the
school year
1–7
A robust data system will be
created to keep track of
student achievement and
response to intervention.
Year 2 1–7
Evidence-based curricula and
interventions aligned with
standards will be identified
by math and ELA leaders.
Ongoing 1–7
Encouraging
Online talk by an RTI expert
to discuss the moral
impetus for RTI and need
for RTI
Beginning of Year 2 1–7
Administration and PLC
coordinators will ensure
there is dedicated PLC time
for teachers to
collaboratively learn about
key features of RTI and
reflect on its
implementation based on
the multi-year plan.
Year 2 1–7
Rewarding
Student successes will be
shared in PLCs.
Year 2 onwards, second
quarter of the year, weekly
in PLCs
1–7
Personalized, handwritten
notes from administrators
and coaches recognizing
team and individual effort
and work.
Ongoing but focused on RTI
after Year 2
1–7
Monitoring
121

Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
1, 2, 3 etc
Observations by
administrators, coaches
Ongoing but with increasing
focus on differentiation and
RTI
1–7
Review of PLC and
assessment data by
administrators, coaches,
and grade-level
intervention teams.
Once a quarter 1–7

Organizational Support Organizations must support stakeholders’ critical behaviors if
goals are to be met. At RDIS, there is currently no clear vision for RTI implementation, and the
organization lacks a schoolwide leadership team. The school has a PLC structure in place and
projects itself as an RTI school. However, with a change in top leadership, the organization has
pivoted from its commitment to RTI and focused more on other initiatives such as coaching. For
RTI to move ahead, there is a need for leadership to re-commit to RTI and put time, money, and
resources into supporting the enactment of critical behavior that will be observable if personnel
are trained in RTI.
Level 2: Learning
Level 2 Learning evaluates the extent to which participants have obtained the knowledge,
skills and attitudes intended by the training program. It includes knowledge, skill, attitude,
confidence, and commitment.
Learning Goals
Chapter Four illustrated some high-priority KMO solutions to support the implementation
of RTI. Critical behaviors were identified to support these goals. To implement RTI, teachers
must
122

• understand the RTI framework, including its purpose and key features
• understand the multiple tiers, their role in each tier, and the tier best suited to their
students’ needs
• be proficient in using assessments, progress monitoring and interpreting results to
identify strengths and areas of need and make data-based decisions
• know how to select and use power standards
• develop skills in differentiating instruction and removing barriers to instruction for
students, including implementing research-based teaching strategies and evidence-
based interventions
• develop effective collaboration skills
• learn procedures on how to document and report on student progress within an RTI
framework, which includes monitoring growth, keeping track of interventions, and
communicating progress to stakeholders
Program
The goals listed will be achieved through a multi-year professional learning program
coordinated by a schoolwide leadership team. Part of the program will involve training with
outside consultants, administrators, PLC leaders and coaches. It will also involve in-classroom
support with coaching and feedback from administrators, coaches, and peers. Administrators will
ensure this is possible by minimizing the number of initiatives and preserving PLC times to
focus on RTI implementation. Stakeholders will participate in PD sessions for alignment
purposes and to build a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility for student learning.
Multiple strategies will be used during these PD sessions, including visual aids with examples,
123

opportunities for reflection and discussion and opportunities to connect new learning to personal
experiences.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
It is important to evaluate teacher learning of declarative, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge, as it is the program’s foundation. It is also important to assess self-efficacy and
continue to ensure that participants have task value which was found to be an asset among study
participants. Table 16 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
124

Table 16
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Explaining the RTI framework, including
purpose and essential components-teacher
surveys
During and after professional development
Understanding the multiple tiers of RTI, their
roles in each tier and which tier is best
suited to their students’ needs-teacher
surveys
During and after professional development
Procedural knowledge: “I can do it right now.”
Selecting power standards, sequencing and
assessing them via teacher surveys
During and after professional development
Identifying which students need help relative
to peers-observation by coaches and
administrators
During and after data days
Differentiating core curriculum Quarterly observations
Implementing research-based techniques and
evidence-based interventions
Quarterly observations
Progress monitoring and making data-based
decisions-surveys and observations
During and after professional development
Metacognitive knowledge
Reflecting on beliefs around RTI in informal
discussions
During and after professional development
Reflecting on extent of collaboration in co-
planning and co-teaching
Quarterly
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Believing that RTI is worth doing relative to
costs
Quarterly
Confidence: “I believe I can do it on the job.”
Feeling prepared to implement RTI-pre/post-
test survey
Before and after training, yearly
Feeling confident in their ability to use
evidence-based interventions
After training and ongoing to monitor
progress
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Goal setting After training and ongoing to monitor
progress
Observation by coaches and administration After training and ongoing to monitor
progress

125

Level 1 Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 1 seeks to measure reactions to
the program through the lens of engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Table 17
outlines methods or tools for evaluating these reactions, along with the timing of each evaluation.

Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Course evaluation After each professional development session
Observations by coaches during RTI-related
PLC sessions that indicate initiative to
engage with material
Throughout PLCS
Relevance
Observation of differentiated instruction in
classrooms by coaches and administration
Quarterly
Observation of application of data-based
decision making, progress monitoring and
use of interventions during data days and
RTI blocks
Quarterly
Course evaluation After each professional development session
Evaluation of teacher knowledge and
relevance of teacher-practices survey
Yearly
Customer satisfaction
Course evaluation After each professional development session

126

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation In this evaluation plan, applying
a blended evaluation method (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a few Level 1 and 2 indicators
will be gauged soon after program implementation. A course evaluation will assess Level 1
indicators such as teacher engagement, relevance and satisfaction following each PD session.
Some questions in this evaluation use a four-point Likert scale and ask how satisfied teachers are
with the program, how well it applies to their classrooms and their level of engagement. Other
questions will be more open-ended. The evaluation will be anonymous and will provide
immediate feedback to administrators. See Appendix F for the course evaluation tool that will be
used immediately after PD sessions. Additionally, some Level 2 indicators relating directly to
declarative and procedural knowledge will be selected to use by facilitators, and these will be
given before and after relevant PD. See Appendix F for these Level 2 indicators.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation. Additional evaluation
measures will be used after the required drivers are implemented and teachers have had an
opportunity to implement skills and knowledge from the program. Several assessment types will
be used to measure Levels 1–3, including open-ended questions, Likert scale survey questions,
observations, and discussions. See Appendix G for identified items.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended collecting and analyzing data at every
implementation stage. This enables supervisors to have a clear understanding of short-term and
long-term outcomes. The data gathered through the suggested tool in Appendices F and G will be
shared with teachers shortly after they complete the training. This will be done during PLC
meetings and staff meetings. The data will be presented using charts for the Likert-type
127

responses, while the open-ended questions will be categorized based on common themes and
shared accordingly. Additionally, observation data will be shared with teachers and PLCs.
During PLC meetings, teams will discuss and share both successful aspects and challenges
encountered in implementing the RTI framework. Facilitators will record these discussions and
bring them to the schoolwide implementation team.
The overall objective of collecting, analyzing, and sharing data is to track progress
toward the teachers’ goals and the organization’s performance goals. Teacher buy-in,
encouragement, monitoring and reinforcement are essential to achieve these goals. Better
outcomes can be achieved by involving and engaging teachers in monitoring progress and
providing feedback on goal achievement.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The new world Kirkpatrick model was utilized to provide an integrated implementation
and evaluation plan to address gaps identified in Chapter Four. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), the main reasons to evaluate programs are to provide feedback to trainers to
improve the program, to indicate if on-the-job performance and results have improved, and to
demonstrate the value training has brought to the organization.
The previous section of this chapter laid out the implementation and evaluation plan. The
program followed a backward design process and started with Level 4, desired outcomes. Level
3 outlined the critical behaviors of primary stakeholders and required drivers to achieve those
goals. Level 2 specified learning goals, and finally, Level 1 showed reactions to the training
program. The four levels together outline a comprehensive way to implement and evaluate ways
to address organizational gaps in the implementation of RTI.
128

Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended collecting, analyzing, and sharing data
continuously throughout the training program. Some possible data collection tools are outlined in
Appendices F, G and H to provide immediate and delayed feedback post-training. Chances are
high that RDIS will be able to implement RTI and improve outcomes for all students by applying
this integrated implementation and evaluation plan over several years.
Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations and delimitations of this study were included in Chapter Three. The
main limitations relate to triangulation, small sample size and literature bias. The impact of the
global pandemic and the long time frame of this study is also a limitation. The main data
triangulation method was through document analysis of a support services review document, and
other methods, such as observations and surveys, were not employed. However, the support
services review encompassed teacher observations, surveys, and focus groups.
Another limitation of the study was the relatively small sample size of teachers. Out of 27
homeroom and learning support teachers who met the eligibility criteria, only 13 agreed to be
interviewed, and only two were learning support teachers. While participants were assured of
anonymity, teachers may not have been entirely trusting and open with their responses. A third
limitation could have been inadvertent biases in the survey of literature, with some studies being
unintentionally missed. A final limitation related to the prevalence of the COVID-19 global
pandemic during the data-gathering phase of the study. The nature of COVID-19 restrictions
impacted teacher ability to group students effectively, and teacher energy and focus were on
delivering instruction safely in person and online rather than on implementing an RTI
framework. An additional limitation of this study resulted from the timeframe for this study.
129

From the time of the data collection and coding, teams received some PD, which may have
impacted some findings.
Delimitations of this study include the selection criteria. Only teachers from Kindergarten
to Grade 2 were selected, and only teachers who had been at RDIS for at least a school year were
included. This study does not include the knowledge, motivation and perspectives of newer staff
members or teachers in other grade levels. As the study was voluntary, it only included teachers
who may have had strong feelings, positive or otherwise, about RTI. While it was important to
focus on a stakeholder group, hearing from administrators, parents, students, instructional
assistants, and counselors would have provided a more comprehensive evaluation of the problem
of practice. Given the context specificity of the study, caution should be applied in generalizing
the findings to other organizations.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future studies at RDIS could involve wider stakeholder groups such as learning support
teachers, administrators, EAL/immersion teachers, and administrators. In the current study, only
two learning support teachers out of a possible five working in Grades K–5 volunteered to
participate in the study or could participate in the study. Due to the limited number of learning
support teachers in the study, an additional area of study could be to evaluate the KMO factors
impacting the implementation of RTI among learning support teachers across all grades at RDIS.
RDIS has recently expanded its programs for students with EAL and immersion. Some
students receiving these supports also require learning support or special education to master
standards, and new staff have been hired to meet these needs. The implementation of an RTI
framework with these students is currently an organizational need and is a possible area for
further study. An identified gap has been the lack of leadership drivers in implementing RTI. The
130

perspectives of organizational leaders and department heads would also make a fascinating area
for future study.
The term MTSS has increasingly become more commonly used at RDIS, mostly among
support services personnel. The school aims to implement MTSS more fully comprehensively,
and it would be interesting to study the implementation of this framework more fully across the
organization, using some of the lessons learned from RTI implementation.
Conclusion
Response to Intervention aims to harness an organization's collective knowledge and
skills in an MTSS to ensure that all students have the essential knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to succeed in college and beyond. Given that the costs of dropping out of school are
lifelong and severe, schools implementing RTI systematically can confidently assert to families
that their children will receive the time and support they need to master essential standards. Such
schools avoid overrepresenting minorities in special education and bring down special education
referrals. Response to Intervention is equity-minded reform, and any organization focused on
diversity, equity and inclusion will benefit from strengthening its service delivery of MTSS.
Furthermore, if teacher education programs were to incorporate knowledge of RTI into their
programs, newly minted teachers would be much better prepared to implement RTI. The
organization that is the focus of this study has some leaders and teachers with more experience
and knowledge of RTI and RDIS and would benefit from having these teachers teach their
colleagues.
AT RDIS, gaps in the implementation of RTI were revealed in Grades K–2 through the
adoption of a modified Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework. KMO factors were identified
that impact the implementation of RTI through a review of literature. Data collection involved
131

semi-structured interviews, and these findings were triangulated against the findings of an RDIS
support services review. Findings revealed gaps in declarative and procedural knowledge and
teacher self-efficacy and also showed organizational barriers impacting teachers’ ability to
successfully impact RTI. Inconsistencies in how RTI was implemented from grade to grade
indicated the need for the organization to build a shared vision, strengthen a culture of collective
responsibility and boost leaders’ capacity to support change by establishing a schoolwide
leadership team.
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to develop
an integrated implementation and evaluation plan to support the institutional goal of streamlining
RTI. The model suggested solutions and evaluation tools to ensure that teachers had the skills
and tools to enact RTI systematically.
If leadership re-commits to an RTI framework and uses a model such as the one outlined
in this study, RDIS has the financial resources and committed, motivated staff to realize its
vision of becoming a world leader in education.

132

References
Al Otaiba, S., Baker, K., Lan, P., Allor, J., Rivas, B., Yovanoff, P., & Kamata, A. (2019).
Elementary teachers’ knowledge of response to intervention implementation: A
preliminary factor analysis. Annals of Dyslexia, 69(1), 34–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-00171-5
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (1st
ed.). Longman.
Artiles, A. J., Bal, A., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2010). Back to the future: A critique of Response to
Intervention’s social justice views. Theory into Practice, 49(4), 250–257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2010.510447
August, G. J., Piehler, T. F., & Miller, F. G. (2018). Getting “SMART” about implementing
multi-tiered systems of support to promote school mental health. Journal of School
Psychology, 66, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.001
Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K.
Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment,
instruction, and professional development (pp. 61–79). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
133

Barnes, A. C., & Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response-to-intervention as a
set of principles. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(3), 417–431.
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0000
Barnes, S. K., & Burchard, M. S. (2011). Quality and utility of the multi-tiered instruction self-
efficacy scale. Research & Practice in Assessment, 6(2), 22–42.
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (Eds.). (2007). The price we pay: Economic and social
consequences of inadequate education (1st ed.). Brookings Institution Press.
Bender, W. M. (2009). Beyond the RTI pyramid: Solutions for the first years of implementation.
Solution Tree Press.
Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River Education District
model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problems-solving
process for intervention delivery. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden
(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment
and intervention (pp. 319–330). Springer Science + Business Media.
Braun, G., Kumm, S., Brown, C., Walte, S., Hughes, M. T., & Maggin, D. M. (2020). Living in
Tier 2: Educators’ perceptions of MTSS in urban schools. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 24(10), 1114–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1511758
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Webber, C. (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RTI,
professional learning communities and how to respond when students don’t learn.
Solution Tree Press.
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2012). Simplifying Response to Intervention : Four
essential guiding principles. Solution Tree Press.
134

Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2015). Simplifying Response to Intervention: Four
essential guiding principles (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
Burns, M. K. (2010). Response-to-Intervention research: Is the sum of the parts as great as the
whole? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 36(2), 13–15.
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of
Responsiveness-To- Intervention research: Examining field-based and research-
implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381–394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2008). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and
secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. Routledge.
Burns, M. K., Jimerson, S.R., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Deno, S.L. (2016). Toward a unified
response-to-intervention model: Multi-tiered systems of support. In S.R. Jimerson, M.K.,
Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The
science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed, pp. 719–732). Springer.
Butler, L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(5), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003
Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention
statewide. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of
response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
319–330). Springer Science + Business Media.
Case, L., Speece, D., Silverman, R., Schatschneider, C., Montanaro, E., & Ritchey, K. (2014).
Immediate and long-term effects of Tier 2 reading instruction for first-grade students with
135

a high probability of reading failure. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
7(1), 28–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.786771
Castro-Villarreal, F., Rodriguez, B. J., & Moore, S. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes
about Response to Intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 40, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.004
Center on Response to Intervention. (2014). RTI fidelity of implementation rubric.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561905.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Coyne, M. D., & Harn, B. A. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful
assessment of early literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20127
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary
prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18,
23–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
Dexter, D. D., Hughes, C. A., & Farmer, T. W. (2008). Responsiveness to Intervention: A review
of field studies and implications for rural Special Education. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 27(4), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050802700402
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional communities at work. Solution Tree.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation Matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
136

implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are
one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading
failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(4), 605–619. libproxy1.usc.edu/. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and remediating
academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about Responsiveness to
Intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
22(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: A blueprint for practitioners,
policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800112
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the National Evaluation of Response to
Intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention:
definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning
137

Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
5826.00072
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention implementation in
assessing response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden
(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment
and intervention (pp. 319–330). Springer Science + Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49053-3_18
Gersten, V., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009).
Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for
elementary and middle schools. U.S. Dept. of Education.
Gersten, V., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research
findings: Implications for improving Special Education practice. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 30(5), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000501
Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the
disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education.
Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 42–52
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270010501
Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, C. P., & Cardarelli, A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of a
Response to Intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A
138

consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 47–63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207310365499
Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical
foundations and recent developments. 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. 10–24). Springer Science + Business Media.
Gresham, F. M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral
interventions. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 326–343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086252
Grimes, J. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special education
identification, service and exciting decision making. Paper presented at Office of Special
Education Programs LD Summit Conference, Washington, D.C.
Hagans-Murillo, K. (2005). Using a Response-to-Intervention approach in Preschool to promote
literacy. California School Psychologist, 10(1), 45–54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340920
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). Inferring program effects for special
populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? The
Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584–599.
https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556431
Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Evans, M., Johnson, C., & Riseman, D. (2006). The long and the
short of raising achievement: Final report of the evaluation of the “Raising Achievement,
Transforming Learning” project of the UK Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Chestnut Hill.
139

Horowitz, S. H., Rawe, J., & Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities:
Understanding the 1 in 5. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
https://www.ncld.org/research/state-of-learning-disabilities/
Ikeda, M. J., Grimes, J., Tilly, W. D., III, Allison, R., Kurns, S., & Stumme, J. (2002).
Implementing an intervention-based approach to service delivery: A case example. In M.
R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior
problems II: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 53–69). National Association of
School Psychologists.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476 (2004)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-466, 118
Stat. 2647 (2004)
Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable
texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 53–85.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4
Jimerson, S., Burns, M., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention:
The science and practice of assessment and intervention. Springer-Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-49053-3
King, D., & Coughlin, P. K. (2016). Looking beyond RTI standard treatment approach: It’s not
too late to embrace the problem-solving approach. Preventing School Failure, 60(3),
244–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1110110
Kirkpatrick, K., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2015). An introduction to the new world Kirkpatrick model.
Kirkpatrick Partners.
140

Kirkpatrick, K., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Associated Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Kotter, J. P. (2011). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. In J. P. Kotter, W. C. Kim,
& R. A. Mauborhne (Eds.), On change management (pp. 1–16). Harvard Business
Review Press.
Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Response to Intervention: Considerations for research and systems
change. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 638–646.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087924
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), 618–631.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087921
Kusama-Powell, O. (2020). Inclusion in International Schools. UK-ISC Research.
https://iscresearch.com/reports/inclusion-international-
schools/#:~:text=This%20report%20uncovers%20research%20into,the%20needs%20of
%20all%20children.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K. M. (1998). Donald L, Frank M Gresham, and
Kathleen M Bocian. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and
141

school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4),
314–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100401
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904200208
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision
making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
5826.00074
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., and Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019
(NCES 2019-144). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144
McNamara, K. M., & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-Based Assessment: Evaluation rates and
eligibility findings. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 181–193.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900204
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R., IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers
seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
142

Muhammad, A., & DuFour, R. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff
division (1st ed.). Solution Tree Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Trends in high school dropout and completion
rates in the United States. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/dropout/intro.asp
Noltemeyer, A. L., Boone, W. J., & Sansosti, F. J. (2014). Assessing school-level RTI
implementation for reading: Development and piloting of the RTIS-R. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 40(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414530462
Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2023). In support of students: A leader’s guide to equitable MTSS.
Jossey-Bass.
Nunn, G. D., & Jantz, P. B. (2009). Factors within response to intervention implementation
training associated with teacher efficacy beliefs. Education, 129(4), 599–607.
Nunn, G. D., Jantz, P. B., & Butikofer, C. (2009). Concurrent validity between teacher efficacy
and perceptions of response to intervention outcomes. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 36(3), 215–218.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017007017
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Powers, K., Hagans, K., & Busse, R. (2008). School Psychologists as instructional consultants in
a Response-to-Intervention model. California School Psychologist, 13(1), 41–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340941
143

Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Sabnis, S., Castillo, J. M., & Wolgemuth, J. R. (2020). RTI, equity, and the return to the status
quo: Implications for consultants. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation,
30(3), 285–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2019.1674152
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schulte, A. C., Easton, J. E., & Parker, J. (2009). Advances in treatment integrity research:
Multidisciplinary perspectives on the conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement
of treatment integrity. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 460–475.
Schumann, J., Rose, T., Collins, K., & Koehler, K. (2020). Curriculum MTSS: A research-based
system to ensure equity and access for learning. https://issuu.com/earcosorg/docs/et-
winter-2020/s/11580314
Schunk, D. H. (2019). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In K. R. Wentzel
& D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 34–54). Routledge.
Sharp, K., Sanders, K., Noltemeyer, A., Hoffman, J., & Boone, W. J. (2016). The relationship
between RTI implementation and reading achievement: A school-level analysis.
Preventing School Failure, 60(2), 152–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1063038
Shirley, D. & Hargreaves, A. (2006). Data-driven to distraction. Education Week, 26(6), 32–33.
Silberglitt, B., Parker, D., & Muyskens, P. (2016). Assessment: Periodic assessment to monitor
progress. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of
144

response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd
ed, pp. 271-291). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_16
Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., Good, R. H., Harn, B. A., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2002).
Building, implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading improvement model school
by school and lessons learned. In M. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.),
Interventions for academic and behavior problems. II: Preventative and remedial
approaches (pp. 537–569). National Association of School Psychologists.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing
response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691–1723.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9338-3
Stoiber, K.C., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based
practices. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of
response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd
ed, pp.121–141). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_9
Torgeson, J. K. (2007). Using an RTI model to guide early reading instruction: Effects on
identification rates for students with disabilities (FCRR Technical Report #7). Florida
Center for Reading Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542604
Vadasy, P., Sanders, E., & Peyton, J. (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-
level instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(4), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380041401
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures
of Response to Intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 339–361.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300404
145

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(2), 225–256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as inadequate response to
instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 18(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00070
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., Scammacca, N., Linan-Thompson, S., & Woodruff, A. L.
(2009). Response to early reading intervention examining higher and lower Responders.
Exceptional Children, 75(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500203
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R. S., & Denckla, M.
B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor
readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and
experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(4), 601–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601
Viadero, D. (1991). States turn to spec.-ed. programs for budget cuts. Education Week, 10(38),
16–19.
Vujnovic, R. K., Fabiano, G. A., Morris, K. L., Norman, K., Hallmark, C., & Hartley, C. (2014).
Examining school psychologists’ and teachers’ application of approaches within a
Response to Intervention framework. Exceptionality, 22(3), 129–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.865530
Weber, C. (2013). RTI in the early grades intervention strategies for mathematics, literacy,
behavior, and fine-motor challenges. Solution Tree Press.
146

Werts, M. G., Lambert, M., & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about
RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740376
Wexler, D. (2018). School-based multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS): An introduction to
MTSS for neuropsychologists. Applied Neuropsychology. Child, 7(4), 306–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2017.1331848
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wilcox, K. A., Murakami-Ramalho, E., & Urick, A. (2013). Just-in-time pedagogy: teachers’
perspectives on the response to intervention framework. Journal of Research in Reading,
36(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01494.x
Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2007). Assessment for eligibility under IDEIA and the 2006
regulations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 202–211.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084070320040201
Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., & Epps, S. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current
practice in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50(2), 160–166.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298305000207

147

Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Homeroom Teachers
The following questions were asked of homeroom teachers to address the research
questions.
Research Questions
1. What are learning support and homeroom teachers’ current levels of knowledge and
motivation in implementing an RTI framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2? K, M
2. What are the organizational factors that influence the implementation of an RTI
framework at the RDIS in Grades K–2? O
3. What are recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO resources for
the implementation of an RTI framework with fidelity at the RDIS in Grades K–2?
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take
about 65–75 minutes. Does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study, the overview for which was
provided to you in the informed consent sheet and answer any questions you might have about
participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a study of teacher
experiences with Response to Intervention (RTI) Implementation at the RDIS in Grades K–2. I
am particularly interested in understanding teacher knowledge of RTI, current levels of teacher
motivation to use an RTI framework and organizational supports and barriers to implementing an
RTI framework.
I am talking to multiple homeroom and learning support teachers to learn more about
this.
148

I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on
how you are performing as an individual teacher. My goal is to understand trends in where RDIS
teachers are with regard to RTI and to use this information to help RDIS improve RTI
implementation.
As stated in the informed consent sheet I provided to you previously, this interview is
confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone in your grade
level team or with an administrator. The data for this study will be compiled into a report, and
while I do plan on using some of what you say as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly
attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to
de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final
paper if you are interested.
As stated in the informed consent sheet, I will keep the data in a password-protected
computer, and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? This meeting will be
recorded so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is solely for my
purposes to best capture what you share and will not be shared with anyone other than myself at
school. May I have your permission to record our conversation? Thank you. I may also take
notes as we speak.
Questions
Setting the Stage
1. First, I want to get to know a little bit about your background in education.
• How did you become interested in the field of education?
149

• How long have you worked in the field?
• How long have you worked at RDIS?
• What roles have you had at RDIS?
• What is your current role at RDIS?
Heart of the Interview
I would like to start by asking you some questions about RTI concepts and goals.
1. If someone were to ask you what is the main goal of implementing an RTI
framework, what would you say? (K)
2. Suppose a novice teacher at RDIS asked you for an explanation of the RDIS RTI
pyramid of interventions; how would you explain it to them? (K)
• What is Tier 1, Tier2/Tier3 instruction at RDIS?
• What tiers are you primarily responsible for in your current role? K
3. In an ideal implementation of RTI, what essential components of RTI would be seen?
(K)
4. Teachers need to reflect on their beliefs around students and learning. RTI proponents
would say that given time and support, every student can learn at high levels. What
are your beliefs regarding this statement? (K)
• What does it mean to learn at high levels?
• What does this mean at your grade level?
5. Tell me what past teaching experiences you may have had, if any, that are helping
you apply an RTI framework today. (K)
• Describe any PD or training, if any, that you have received about RTI
• Prior to joining RDIS? (K)
150

Classrooms are filled with diverse learners. These may be English language learners,
students who need extension, struggling students, and students in the middle. In an RTI model,
Tier 1 refers to core instruction or differentiated high-impact instruction provided to all students.
6. If someone were to walk into your classroom during core instruction in ELA or math,
how would they experience you differentiating instruction to meet the needs of
students, if at all?
• What would it look like? What would it sound like? (K)
• What support do you need, if at all, to differentiate instruction more
effectively? O
7. In an RTI model, power standards are essential learning targets that each child should
master. How would I see teachers using power standards in your grade level? (K)
Probe: What, if anything, could be done to improve your PLC’s usage of power
standards? (O)
8. An important component of RTI is the use of assessments in decision making. If
someone were to ask you to explain how you currently use data in identifying
students who need support, what would you say?
• How do you use data from the universal screener? How do you use
benchmark assessments?)
• What support, if any, do you need to use assessment data more effectively?
(O)
9. Imagine that you have a new student in Nov. Maya has been at RDIS for about three
weeks. On the December Aimsweb testing, she tested at the 15th percentile in
151

reading. She is performing a few months below benchmark on all classroom
assessments and needs adult support to work with her in a small group at most times.
• What tier of support does she need? K
• What processes would you follow to ensure that Maya gets the support that
she needs? O
• How clear are these processes to stakeholders such as yourself? (O)
• How consistent are these procedures when key personnel, such as counselors
and learning support teachers, change? (O)
We are currently about halfway through, and I think it’s going well. Is there anything else
you would like to share about Tier 1? Your answers have been very helpful so far.
Let’s begin by discussing Tier 2 in RTI. In an RTI model, Tier 2 refers to targeted
instruction or intervention which increases student mastery of power standards.
10. What do Tier 2 interventions look like in your grade level? How do you decide which
interventions a student might need? (K)
11. One mechanism for Tier 2 at our school is acceleration block (AB block). Tell me
how you currently use AB block, if at all, to provide interventions and extensions. (O)
• Tell me about a success that you have experienced with AB block, if any. (O)
• Tell me about a challenge with AB block that you have experienced, if any.
(O)
• What, if anything, could be done to improve the AB block? (O)
12. To what extent do you work collaboratively with other teachers to support struggling
learners? (K)
152

• Some say that individual classroom teachers are best poised to support
students in their classes with interventions. Others say outcomes for students
are better when teachers in a PLC share students while providing interventions
and extensions. What are your thoughts about this? (M)
• How, if at all, could collaboration be improved in your grade level? (K)
13. How do you know if Tier 2 interventions are working?
• How often do you monitor progress students in Tier 2 in a 6–8 week period, if
at all?
• How do you keep track of progress monitoring data on students, if at all? (O)
• Describe the process followed when a student does not make progress with
Tier 2 support. (O)
• How confident do you feel about progress monitoring students in your role?
(M)
One important aspect of RTI is that students should have access to power standard
instruction at their level and below.
14. Describe how, if at all, you are currently ensuring that students have access to Tier 1
Core and Tier 2 interventions. What, if at all, could be done to improve access to all
tiers for all students? (O)
15. How confident do you feel about using scientifically validated interventions in your
role?
• What factors contribute to you feeling this way? (M)
• What does the term scientifically validated mean to you?

153

Is there anything you want to tell me about Tier 2 that we have not covered so far?
Now, let’s move on to the final set of questions regarding organizational factors relating
to RTI implementation.
For RTI to work effectively, there needs to be a cultural shift in how the organization
works with students who need interventions. By culture, I am referring to the unstated norms and
values with how you interact with others.
16. Tell me about the culture at RDIS and how it positively or negatively impacts RTI
implementation. O
• Give me an example of a positive element of RDIS culture that supports RTI
implementation.
• What about the culture at RDIS impedes the implementation of RTI with
fidelity?
• What changes, if any, did you notice in your own practice since RDIS adopted
RTI/joining a school that uses RTI?
17. Let’s now discuss your experiences with the strategic implementation process of RTI
at RDIS as a veteran teacher/new teacher. (O)
• Which group of individuals do you believe is responsible for leading RTI
implementation in the elementary division at RDIS?
• What support, if any, have you received from this group to implement RTI in
your role?
• What are your thoughts about having sufficient
• Scientifically validated interventions
• Schedule to do interventions
154

• Time to collaborate and plan
• How, if at all, does this group evaluate the effectiveness of RTI Probe: How
often have you been asked by this group for your opinion on RTI
implementation)?
• How, if at all, is feedback on the current state of RTI implementation
communicated to staff? (Prompt: How often, if at all, do you hear from this
group)
• How, if at all, does RDIS ensure that RTI procedures are systematically
implemented across the school?
18. How confident are you feeling about your ability to implement RTI in your role? (M)
• What factors are contributing to you feeling this way? (M)
• What kind of professional development, if any, do you still need to improve
your practice of RTI? (O)
19. Relative to costs in terms of time and effort, to what degree do you feel that RTI is
worth implementing in schools? M
20. If you were in charge of improving RTI implementation in elementary school, what
would you do?
21. What other insights would you like to share about RTI implementation that I might
not have covered, if any? Probe: For teachers who have worked in multiple grade
levels only. Based on your experience, how consistently is RTI applied across grade
levels at RDIS?

155

Closing Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything you have shared in the interview is really helpful to my
study. Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you, please accept this small
token of my appreciation (Thank you note and S$15 Starbucks voucher)

156

Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Learning Support Teachers
This study addressed three research questions:
1. What are learning support and homeroom teachers’ current levels of knowledge and
motivation in implementing an RTI Framework at the Red Dot International School in
Grades K–2? K, M
2. What are the organizational factors that influence the implementation of an RTI
framework at the Red Dot International School in Grades K–2? O
3. What are recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of KMO resources for
the implementation of an RTI framework with fidelity at the Red Dot International
School in Grades K–2?
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take
about 65-75 minutes. Does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study, the overview for which was
provided to you in the informed consent sheet and answer any questions you might have about
participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a study of teacher
experiences with Response to Intervention (RTI) Implementation at the RDIS in Grades K–2. I
am particularly interested in understanding teacher knowledge of RTI, current levels of teacher
motivation to use an RTI framework and organizational supports and barriers to implementing an
RTI framework.
I am talking to multiple homeroom and learning support teachers to learn more about
this.
157

I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on
how you are performing as an individual teacher. My goal is to understand trends in where RDIS
teachers are with regard to RTI and to use this information to help RDIS improve RTI
implementation.
As stated in the study information sheet I provided to you previously, this interview is
confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone in your grade
level team or with an administrator. The data for this study will be compiled into a report, and
while I do plan on using some of what you say as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly
attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to
de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final
paper if you are interested.
As stated in the study information sheet, I will keep the data in a password-protected
computer, and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? This meeting will be
recorded so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is solely for my
purposes to best capture what you share and will not be shared with anyone other than myself at
school. May I have your permission to record our conversation? Thank you. I may also take
notes as we speak.
Questions
Setting the Stage
1. First, I want to get to know a little bit about your background in education.
• How did you become interested in the field of education?
158

• How long have you worked in the field?
• How long have you worked at RDIS?
• What roles have you had at RDIS?
• What is your current role at RDIS?
Heart of the Interview
I would like to start by asking you some questions about RTI concepts and goals.
1. If someone were to ask you what is the main goal of implementing an RTI
framework, what would you say? (K)
2. Suppose a novice teacher at RDIS asked you for an explanation of the RDIS RTI
pyramid of interventions; how would you explain it to them? (K)
• What is Tier 1, Tier2/Tier3 instruction at RDIS
• What tiers are you primarily responsible for in your current role?
3. In an ideal implementation of RTI, what essential components of RTI would be seen?
(K)
4. Teachers need to reflect on their beliefs around students and learning. RTI proponents
would say that given time and support, every student can learn at high levels. What
are your beliefs regarding this statement? (K)
• What does it mean to learn at high levels? What does this mean at your grade
level?
5. Tell me what past teaching experiences you may have had, if any, that are helping
you apply an RTI framework today. (K)
• Describe any PD or training that you have received about RTI prior to joining
RDIS, if any.
159

• Describe any PD or training that you have received about RTI at RDIS, if any.
Let’s now discuss Tier 2 in RTI. In an RTI model, Tier 2 refers to targeted instruction or
intervention which increases student mastery of power standards. Let’s discuss Tier 2.
6. What do Tier 2 interventions look like in your grade level? How do you decide which
interventions a student might need? (K)
7. One mechanism for Tier 2 at our school is acceleration block (AB block). Tell me
how you currently use AB block, if at all, to provide interventions and extensions?
(O)
• Tell me about a success that you have experienced with AB block, if any. (O)
• Tell me about a challenge with AB block that you have experienced, if any.
(O)
• What, if anything, could be done to improve the AB block? (O)
8. To what extent do you work collaboratively with other teachers to support struggling
learners? (K) How could collaboration be improved in your grade level? (K)
9. How do you know if Tier 2 interventions are working?
• How often do you monitor progress students in Tier 2 in a 6–8 week period, if
at all?
• How do you keep track of progress monitoring data on students, if at all? (O)
• Describe the process followed when a student does not make progress with
Tier 2 support. (O)
• How confident do you feel about progress monitoring students in your role?
(M)
160

One important aspect of RTI is that students should have access to power standard
instruction at their level and below.
10. Describe how, if at all, you are currently ensuring that students have access to Tier 1 Core
and Tier 2 interventions. What if anything could be done to improve access to all tiers for
all students? (O)
11. How confident do you feel about using scientifically validated interventions in your role?
What factors contribute to you feeling this way? (M) What does the term scientifically
validated mean to you?
Is there anything you want to tell me about Tier 2 that we have not covered so far? Tier 3
interventions describe intensive individualized interventions with a focus on the academic needs
of students with disabilities and those significantly below grade level.
12. Think back to a time when a student qualified to receive Tier 3 support. Describe the
process used to make this determination.
• In your opinion, how clear and consistent are these processes to all stakeholders,
including yourself? (O)
• Which stakeholders were involved in the decision? (O)
13. Describe some successes you may have had with Tier 3 interventions. Provide a specific
example. (O)
14. Describe some challenges you may have had with Tier 3 interventions. Provide a specific
example. (O)
15. How do you know if interventions are working at Tier 3 level? O
• How, if at all, are you currently using progress monitoring at Tier 3?
• How often are students in Tier 3 level progress monitored within a month?
161

16. Maya is a student who has not made progress with Tier 2 interventions after 4 months
of support. She performed at the 10th percentile on mid-year Aimsweb testing and is
more than 6 months behind on classroom benchmarks. Assessments show that she
needs reading and math interventions.
• How, if at all, do you determine if interventions used with Maya are evidence-
based? O
• When Maya goes to the next grade level, how, if all, are her interventions
aligned from grade to grade? O
Now, let’s move on to the final set of questions regarding organizational factors relating
to RTI implementation.
For RTI to work effectively, there needs to be a cultural shift in how the organization
works with students who need interventions. By culture, I am referring to the unstated norms and
values with how you interact with others.
17. Tell me about the culture at RDIS and how it positively or negatively impacts RTI
implementation. O
• Give me an example of a positive element of RDIS culture that supports RTI
implementation.
• What about the culture at RDIS impedes the implementation of RTI with
fidelity?
• What changes, if any, did you notice in your own practice since RDIS adopted
RTI/joining a school that uses RTI?
18. Let’s now discuss your experiences with the strategic implementation process of RTI
at RDIS as a veteran teacher/new teacher. O
162

• Which group of individuals do you believe is responsible for leading RTI
implementation in the elementary division?
• What support, if any, have you received from this group to implement RTI in
your role? What are your thoughts about having sufficient
• Scientifically validated interventions
• Schedule to do interventions
• Time to collaborate and plan
• How, if at all, does this group evaluate the effectiveness of RTI (Probe: How
often have you been asked by this group for your opinion on RTI
implementation)?
• How, if at all, is feedback on the current state of RTI implementation
communicated to staff? How often, if at all, do you hear from this group
• How, if at all, does RDIS ensure that RTI procedures are systematically
implemented across the school?
19. How confident are you feeling about your ability to implement RTI in your role? (M)
• What factors are contributing to you feeling this way?
• What kind of professional development, if any, do you still need to improve
your practice of RTI? (O)
20. Relative to costs in terms of time and effort, to what degree do you feel that RTI is
worth implementing in schools? (M)
21. If you were in charge of improving RTI implementation in elementary school, what
would you do? (O)
163

22. What other insights would you like to share about RTI implementation that I might
not have covered, if any? For teachers who have worked in multiple grade levels, how
consistently are RTI procedures applied across the grade levels?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything you have shared in the interview is really helpful to my
study. Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you, please accept this small
token of my appreciation (S$15 Starbucks voucher)

164

Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089

Implementation of Response to Intervention: An Evaluation Study
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to evaluate the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) in Grades K–2
at RDIS. I am particularly interested in understanding teacher knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that facilitate or act as barriers in RTI implementation. I am seeking to
gather teacher experiences, perceptions and suggestions to improve the implementation of RTI in
these early elementary grades.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview lasting 65–
75 minutes via Zoom. Each interview will be recorded, and the file will be uploaded to an
external source outside the organization to be transcribed. Questions will be based on
knowledge, motivation and organizational supports and barriers that impact teachers in Grades
K–2 to implement RTI with fidelity. You will not be evaluated as an individual and can choose
not to answer questions at any time in the interview.
Compensation
No compensation will be provided at the end of the interview except for a token thank you
Starbucks gift card worth $15.
165

Confidentiality
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected. Your name will not be shared with
divisional administrators, PLC leaders, coaches or central administration. I will do my best to de-
identify information that is collected. I may use specific quotes but will use pseudonyms to
protect your identity. All data will be kept in a password-protected computer, and data will be
destroyed after 3 years. A copy of my final report will be shared with you if interested.
Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency, and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Investigator Contact Information
The Principal Investigator is Shabari Karumbaya, karumbay@usc.edu, +65 9781 2416
The Faculty Advisors are Dr. Darline Robles, dprobles@rossier.usc.edu,
Dr Lawrence Picus, lpicus@rossier.usc and Dr. Nasser Cortez, nasserco@usc.edu
IRB Contact Information
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

166

Appendix D: Recruitment Email
Dear Colleagues,
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. As part of my doctoral
research, I would like to conduct interviews with teachers at RDIS to evaluate RTI
implementation in Grades K–2 at RDIS. Through this process, I seek to understand KMO
influences that facilitate or act as barriers in RTI implementation. Through interviews,
homeroom and learning support teachers will be asked to share insights, experiences, challenges,
and to offer inputs to improve RTI implementation at RDIS. For the purposes of this study, I am
looking to interview teachers who have worked at RDIS for at least a year.
The interview will take about 60–75 minutes to complete and will be scheduled at your
convenience. All interviews will be conducted by me via Zoom following COVID safety
protocols at RDIS, and data gathered will be anonymous.
If you are willing to be interviewed and/or have questions about the study, please email
me at skarumbaya@sas.edu.sg.
Thank you for your consideration.
Shabari Karumbaya
(Approved by the Principal, Elementary School, RDIS)

167

Appendix E: Document Analysis Protocol
Findings from the
interview
Findings from
the data
analysis
Summary
(need/asset/area for further
study)
Knowledge factors
Motivation factors
Organizational factors
Appendix E: Document Analysis Protocol

168

Appendix F: Evaluation Tool to be Used Immediately Following Training
To measure the effectiveness of the training program, we seek your honest and
anonymous feedback. Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Please
select strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree.
Level 1 (engagement): I was engaged throughout the professional development session.
Level 1 (relevance): The knowledge and skills I learned in this session can be applied in
working with my students/PLC.
Level 1 (customer satisfaction): This professional development was a good use of my
time.
Level 2 (attitude): I see value in the content of this training to help implement an RTI
framework.
Level 2 (confidence): I feel confident in my ability to apply the content of this workshop
in working with my students and PLC.
Level 2 (commitment): I am committed to applying the knowledge and skills I learned
today.
• Which part of the training did you find most useful today? (L1)
• Which part of the training would you change to make it more impactful? (L1)
• What additional support do you need to implement what you have learned? (L2)
• What barriers do you anticipate that could limit your ability to apply this learning?
(L2)
169

Appendix G: Level 2 Evaluation Tool to be Used Before and After Training
Please answer the following questions as it pertains to the relevant professional
development session you attended today. Please select strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or
strongly agree.
Level 2 (declarative knowledge): I can explain the purpose of RTI.
Level 2 (declarative knowledge): I can name at least three key components of an RTI
framework.
Level 2 (declarative knowledge): I understand the multiple tiers of RTI and my role in
each tier.
Level 2 (declarative knowledge): I can identify which tier is best suited to my students’
needs.
Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I know how to select and unpack essential power
standards.
Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I can interpret data from the universal screening and
other assessment data to identify which students require intervention relative to peers.
Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I know how to differentiate instruction by content,
process, product and environment.
Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I can use an evidence-based intervention to provide
support in reading.
Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I can use an evidence-based intervention to provide
support in writing.
Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I can use an evidence-based intervention to provide
support in math.
170

Level 2 (procedural knowledge): I know how to progress monitor students and make
changes to instruction accordingly.

171

Appendix H: Evaluation Tool Delayed After a Period of Training for Levels 1-3
To measure the effectiveness of our program, we would like to collect anonymous
quarterly information from teachers over the course of the school year. Please answer the
following questions to the best of your ability. Please select strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or
strongly agree.
Grade Level:
Quarter:
School Year:
Level 1 (customer satisfaction): The professional development sessions on RTI that I
have attended this quarter have been a good use of time.
Level 1 (customer satisfaction): Coaching sessions on RTI this quarter have been a good
use of time.
Level 1 (relevance): The knowledge and skills I have gained from professional learning
sessions this quarter have been transferable to the classroom and PLC work.
Level 3: Along with my PLC, I analyze the data from the universal screeners and
benchmark assessments to determine which students may need interventions.
Level 3: I use a progress monitoring tool to determine if students have made progress.
Level 3: Along with my PLC, I use power standards to plan for interventions and
extensions prior to teaching a unit.
Level 3: Along with my PLC, I use end-of-unit assessments on power standards to plan
for interventions after a unit is completed.
Level 3: I currently differentiate instruction by content, process, product and environment
to meet the needs of all my students.
172

Level 3: I use evidence-based interventions and instructional strategies to meet the needs
of my students.
Level 2 (confidence): I feel confident that I can implement an RTI framework in my role.
Level 2 (commitment): I am committed to implementing an RTI framework.
Level 2 (attitude): I believe RTI is worth implementing relative to time and effort.
Level 2 (declarative knowledge): Explain what you believe is the purpose of
implementing an RTI framework.
Level 2 (declarative knowledge): Name some key features of RTI.
My school has a culture of collective responsibility for student learning.
My school has a schoolwide team responsible for RTI implementation.
I feel supported by the schoolwide RTI implementation team to implement RTI in my
role.
My school has a plan in place for implementing RTI with fidelity that has been
communicated to all stakeholders.
My school has a robust system for keeping track of student data.
All students in my grade level are given a universal screener three times a year.
We have clear and timely systems in place to intensify supports for students who need it.
I have adequate time in the schedule to plan to collaborate with my small group PLC.
My PLC has a bank of evidence-based interventions for Tier 2 intervention.
My PLC has adequate personnel to provide Tier 2 interventions and extensions.
How can RTI implementation be improved from your perspective?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs

PDF

Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation

PDF

Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

Asset Metadata

Creator Karumbaya, Shabari (author)

Core Title The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/25/2023

Defense Date 06/30/2023

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational factors,response to Intervention,teacher knowledge to implement RTI,teacher motivation to implement RTI,tiered systems of support

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Cortez, Naseer (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email karumbay@usc.edu,skarumbaya@sas.edu.sg

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113288972

Unique identifier UC113288972

Identifier etd-KarumbayaS-12142.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-KarumbayaS-12142

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Karumbaya, Shabari

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230725-usctheses-batch-1073 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu