University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES AT A HIGH PERFORMING HIGH POVERTY
SCHOOL:
A CASE STUDY USING RTI TO PROMOTE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Leila Ramos Gabriel

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Leila Ramos Gabriel
ii

DEDICATION

To my husband, Anthony for your love and support especially during the last
three years, thank you for believing in me and understanding my desire for continued
learning. To my grandparents, Rufo and Julie Ramos for your continuous support,
unconditional love, and endless sacrifices, you have been a constant source of inspiration
for me throughout my life. Finally to Reinna and Reichel, my girls that inspired me,
thank you for your patience and understanding while mommy did her “work.” I look
forward to the day you look back and remember this time and hope that you regard me as
your role model. Always set your goals high, work hard and know that you have the
ability to succeed in whatever you set your mind on.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation reflects the dedication and effort of many individuals. It has been
a long, “iterative” process that would have been more challenging without the careful
guidance of my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathy Stowe. Thank you for sharing your wisdom
and expertise, your reflective feedback, and especially holding me accountable and
providing me with the tools necessary to complete this dissertation. I wish to
acknowledge my dissertation committee, Dr. Larry Picus and Dr. Pedro Garcia, for their
time, dedication and feedback.
A special thank you to the wonderful women in my thematic dissertation group
for their support and encouragement. I would like to especially acknowledge Rachelle, an
extraordinary individual whom I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to know
and call my friend. We started this journey together – group projects, running between
classes, and sharing stories…we finally made it! I cannot express enough thanks for your
ongoing support, feedback and words of encouragement…I couldn’t have gone through
this process without you.
I wish to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Holtom who encouraged me to go
back to school, welcomed me onto his campus and facilitated my data collection. To the
students and staff at Costa Elementary School, for sharing your experiences freely and
welcoming me into your classrooms, this study would not have been possible without all
that you do.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..v
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………vi
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………...vii
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY…………………………………1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………19
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………..56
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ………………………..72
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS………………………….125
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………….135
APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL………….……..146
APPENDIX B: TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL…………………………..150
APPENDIX C: CLASSIFIED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL………………………..154
APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL…………………..156
APPENDIX E: MEETING PROTOCOL…………………………………………..158
APPENDIX F: GENERAL SITE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL………………...160
APPENDIX G: DATA COLLECTION ……………………………………………162
APPENDIX H: CONSENT FORM………………………………………………...164
APPENDIX I: WEEKLY LESSON PLAN SAMPLE………………………….….167
APPENDIX J: DAILY TIME ALLOTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS………….169
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Overview of Tiers 1, 2 and 3…………………………………………..41
Table 3.1: Participants in Study…………………………………………………...61

Table 3.2: Student Demographics …………………………………………….…..63
Table 3.3: API Scores of Costa Elementary and BUSD from 2003-2010………...64
Table 3.4: Instrumentation and Research Questions……………………………....66
Table 4.1: Student Enrollment by Ethnicity between 2003-2010………………....74

Table 4.2: Learning Center Data 2009-2010……………………………………....82

Table 4.3: Costa’s Suspensions and Expulsions from 2003-2010………………....82
Table 4.4: Example of Required Assessments……………………………………..93
Table 4.5: Percent of Teacher Credentials from 2003-2009…………………….…119

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Example of Multi-Tiered Approach…………………………….……37

Figure 3.1: BUSD Student Ethnicity……………………………………………..62
Figure 3.2: Costa Student Ethnicity………………………………………………62
Figure 3.3: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………65
Figure 3.4: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis…………………….70
Figure 4.1: RSP…………………………………………………………………..76
Figure 4.2: RTI……………………………………………………………....…...77
Figure 4.3: Percent of Students with Disabilities………………………………...78

Figure 4.4: Costa Elementary School API Scores 2003-2010 …………………79

Figure 4.5: ELA Percent Proficient………………………………………………80

Figure 4.6: Math Percent Proficient……………………………………………...81

Figure 4.7: Relationship Between the School-wide Structures at Costa
Elementary School……………………………………………………………….85

Figure 4.8: Screening Model……………………………………………………..87

Figure 4.9: Three-tiered Approach at Costa Elementary School………………...90

Figure 4.10: Teacher Experience from 2003-2009………………………………120

Figure 4.11: Effective Collaboration at Costa Elementary School………………122

vii

ABSTRACT
Improving educational outcomes for all students is the primary focus of educational
reform movements. In an attempt to minimize the achievement gap in student
performance, Response to Intervention (RTI) emphasizes the early identification of
struggling students, a multi-tiered intervention model and progress monitoring.
This study provided an in-depth description of the systems and structures of the
RTI framework at a single Southern California elementary school selected for being both
high performing and high poverty. The research questions that guided this study were: (1)
What are the trends and patterns of performance among students attending high poverty,
high achieving schools, specifically students in special education? (2) What are the
perceived school wide systems and structures that contribute to the high achievement in
high poverty schools and have the most impact on the implementation of RTI? (3) How
are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support higher levels of
achievement for all students?
Qualitative data for this study were collected from interviews, observations and
documents. Findings revealed that the systems of professional development, leadership
and resource allocation positively influenced RTI implementation. Strong leadership
provided the effective elements of: prioritizing student achievement, implementing a
standards-based curriculum, using assessment data to improve instruction, and ensuring
the availability of appropriate instructional resources and interventions. As RTI gains
traction, this study will contribute to the knowledge of a school wide reform and its
implications for success at a high poverty school.
1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Historically, high poverty schools have been associated with low academic
achievement. Since the Civil Rights Movement, concern regarding the equality of
educational opportunity for all students has led to many national reform efforts in an
attempt to improve the education of students in high poverty schools. One such reform
effort that linked education and poverty policy programs was the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (Thomas & Brady, 2005). ESEA was
established to provide equal access to education for disadvantaged and underprivileged
children, including financial resources and learning opportunities. It further established
high standards and accountability for all students. As part of the act, federally funded
education programs such as Title I, represented the financial resource assistance provided
to local educational agencies and public schools for struggling students. It was authorized
with the intent to improve the education for students of low-income families with the
expectation of meeting the challenging state academic standards and closing the
achievement gap.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized
in 1994 to Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). The aim of IASA was to assist
disadvantaged children meet high standards in addition to recognizing that a sizable gap
remained between children from low-income families and highest poverty schools and
other children. In general, IASA declared that it would be United States policy that
students receive an equal opportunity to obtain a high quality education (IASA).
2

In 2001, IASA was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The
intention of NCLB, similar to ESEA, was to provide quality education to all students
regardless of racial, ethnic or socioeconomic background. Emphasis was placed on
eliminating inequalities in schools and examining the lack of quality education for
disadvantaged students (Thomas & Brady, 2005; McDonnell, 2005). The four pillars of
NCLB are based on increased accountability, flexibility for states and communities,
research-based programs and practices and choices for parents (NCLB, 2001). While the
aim of NCLB was to ensure the success of every child and hold schools accountable to
equal standards, discrepancies among disadvantaged students living in high poverty
environments continue to exist.
African American and Hispanic children particularly living in urban areas are
among the groups that are heavily overrepresented in high poverty schools (Berliner,
2006). According to the National Center for Children in Poverty (2008), Hispanic and
Black children are disproportionately poor. The report indicates that 31% of Hispanic
children and 35% of Black children live in poverty. These students that attend high-
poverty schools continue to underperform compared to more economically advantaged
students as evident on achievement tests, graduation rates and acceptances to college.
One indication of the math and reading performance of American children is reflected in
The Nation’s Report Card from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). The results revealed that students who were not eligible for free or reduced-
price school lunch scored higher on average than those who were eligible (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006). For example, on the 2006 assessment of the math skills
3

for fourth graders – students attending high poverty schools had an average score of 221,
in comparison to lower poverty schools that scored an average of 255.
Students attending high-poverty schools encounter many challenges. In
kindergarten, students attending high poverty schools were about four times more likely
to have excessive absents than those attending low poverty schools (Romero & Lee,
2007). Research has shown that students with chronic absents demonstrate lower levels
of achievement in future grade levels, also indicating the end of fifth grade academic
performance (Chang & Romero, 2008).
In addition, retention is greater for students from poor families than their
counterparts. For example, The Condition in Education 2009 revealed that 23% of
students from poor families were retained, while 5% of students from non-poor families
were retained (Planty et al., 2009). Further, while drop out rates vary between race and
ethnicities, drop out rates were higher for minority students and students from
disadvantaged backgrounds. The 2007 dropout rate was 5% for white students, compared
to 12% for Black students and 20% for Hispanic students (Planty et al., 2009).
Disparities in achievement for minority students in urban schools have been
attributed to the inequality of school experiences, opportunities to learn, and the lack of
equalized funding and resource allocation provided to schools serving a large proportion
of high poverty students. Research has revealed that there is a correlation between
qualified teachers, access to quality curriculum and adequate physical facilities and
student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ingersoll, 1999). Much too often, high
poverty schools are accustom to high staff turnover, provisionally licensed teachers,
4

limited access to technology, and a lack of specialists and resources (Blanchett, Mumford
& Beachum, 2005; Ingersoll, 1999; Shaul & Ganson, 2005). Students attending high
poverty schools are also less likely to have “highly qualified” teachers (Evans, 2004).
There are a greater percentage of teachers who are not highly qualified under NCLB in
high poverty and high minority schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Moreover,
even among those highly qualified teachers in high poverty schools, they were more
likely to have less than three years experience and were less likely to have a degree in
their field compared to highly qualified teachers in affluent areas. For example, 27% of
high school math teachers in high poverty schools have their college degree in
mathematics, in contrast to the 43% of high school math teachers in affluent schools
(Ingersoll, 1999).
Not only are the students that attend high poverty schools taught by less qualified
teachers, than students attending more affluent schools, they are exposed to striking
differences in classroom curriculum (Belfiore, Auld & Lee, 2005; Darling-Hammond,
2000). Often, students at high poverty schools are not provided with high quality,
challenging material requiring problem solving, logic or reasoning. Further inequality is
evident in the lack of advanced or college preparatory classes offered at high poverty
schools. Rather, these students are placed in remedial or lower tracked classes that
provide less academic rigor, support and motivation (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Instruction is “watered down” with focus on basics only and paper-pencil tasks in
specific content (Belfiore et al., 2005).
5

Although there has been a steady increase in the number of students receiving
special education services, in 2005-2006, there was also an increase in the percentage of
students with disabilities exiting school with a regular high school diploma from 43% in
1996-1997 to 57%. Additionally, there was an increase from 9 to 15% of students with
disabilities exiting with a certificate of attendance. Further, drop out rates decreased from
46 to 26% (Planty et al., 2008). With the current shift in special education toward a more
inclusive setting, 50% of students in special education are included in the general
education classroom for most of the day (U. S. Depart of Education, 2003).
Similar to the inequities of the general achievement gap, concern is mounting
over the fact that there is a disproportionate representation of minority students for
special education services. Racial disparities of students in special education continue to
demonstrate inequity in the educational system (Skiba et al., 2008). Despite state
standards and accountability measures, inadequacies of general education classrooms to
meet the need of each individual student, especially in high poverty urban schools are
thought to be the source of the disproproportionality of students in special education
(Ferri & Connor, 2005). Underachievement is amplified by lack of funds, resources,
qualified teachers, competitive courses and low expectations (Ferri & Connor, 2005;
O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006). A particular disturbing finding is that minority students
are not only commonly placed into special education classes more than non-minority
groups, but are often classified with the disability category of mental retardation or
having emotional disturbance (Harry, 1992; Jones, 2002; Kunjufu, 2001; Losen &
Orfield, 2002; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [OSERS], 2002).
6

African American students have the highest percentage than any other ethnic group for
mental retardation at 17.4% and emotional disturbance at 11.3% (U. S. Department of
Education, 2003).
These issues concerning equal opportunity in education for high poverty, minority
students and disproportionate placement of students in special education has been a long-
standing concern for policy makers. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) provided the
foundation to overturn the ruling of “separate but equal” as it related to educational
services. In 1975, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was passed to
assure that all children with disabilities were not placed into segregated schools, but that
they receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The EHA 1975 has undergone
many reauthorizations and amendments and is now currently referred to as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004).
The IDEIA 2004 has acknowledged concerns with the overrepresentation of
minority students in special education through the implementation of newly required
policies and procedures. To address disproportionality, the President’s Commission on
Excellence in Special Education (OSERS, 2002) recommended universal screening of all
students in early grades. Early identification and intervention of struggling students and
improving the educational opportunities for students with diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds will reduce the disproportionate representation in special education
placements (Klinger & Edwards, 2006; Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009).
Despite long standing achievement trends, many high poverty schools have
successfully attained high levels of academic achievement. Edmonds (1979) Search for
7

Effective School Project sought to determine whether effective schools exist to educate
poor children. Unlike Coleman, who attributed academic differences to social class and
family background (Coleman, 1966), Edmonds concluded that effective schools were
successful due to strong leadership, the setting of high expectations for all students,
having an orderly atmosphere, requiring students to acquire basic skills, utilizing
resources appropriately and monitoring students’ progress (Edmonds, 1979). It is evident
through Edmond’s project that schools have the opportunity to interrupt or perpetuate the
negative achievement trajectory of many urban students.
Research further supports Edmonds findings and indicates that there is a clear
difference between high performing and low performing schools. In an effort to “beat the
odds” and close the achievement gap, successful high poverty schools focus on a school
climate of high standards, implementation of a coherent standards-based curriculum,
frequent assessment, professional development and ensuring adequate instructional
resources (Levine, Cooper & Hilliard, 2000; Reeves, 2003; Williams et al., 2005). In
addition to the belief that all students can achieve at high levels of success, high poverty
schools with high levels of achievement have effective instructional leaders, positive
teacher factors which include low teacher turn over, motivated teachers with high morale,
highly qualified teachers as well as motivated students (Hughes, 1999; Marzano, 2003;
Springboard Schools, 2006; Reeves, 2003; Williams et al., 2005).
Research has demonstrated that organizational structures and systems promote
high achievement even in the most challenging, high poverty schools with the largest
percentages of highly at-risk students. According to Marzano (2003), following the
8

direction provided by research greatly impacts student achievement. In reviewing
relevant literature, coherent themes emerged that distinguished effective structures from
effective systems for increasing student performance. Structures of federal, state and
district mechanisms, policies and procedures influence the implementation of school
programs (Sunderman, 2000). Additional organizational structures or school level factors
which serve as a function of the school policy, school-wide procedures and operating
procedures (Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005) include the curriculum, feedback, parent
and community involvement, safe environment and professionalism. Although many
districts share similar structures, they have the liberty to execute the systems as they
perceive appropriate in order to create successful learning environments for all students.
Systems describe the factors that contribute to the structures in order to ensure the
success of the school’s vision, mission and goals. Ultimately, systems are the mechanism
for translating mandated structures into effective practice.
In designing as school reform, the creation of a site-specific intervention
addressing the needs of the school is indentified (Marzano et al., 2005). As part of an
effort to improve achievement for all students, one such structure that has been
implemented in many schools is Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI is a systematic,
data-driven approach that integrates resources from general education, categorical
programs and special education into a comprehensive system to meet the needs of all
students (California Department of Education, 2009). It is a method intended to close the
achievement gap of all subgroups through early identification of struggling students that
require more intensive instruction. RTI is also being utilized as a new way of identifying
9

students with learning disabilities. It is expected that the use of differentiated instruction
and improving the quality of general education for disadvantaged students through the
use of the RTI framework might decrease the overrepresentation of minority students and
allow students with special needs education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
as mandated by IDEA (California Department of Education, 2009; National Research
Council, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
Educational inequality has been evident through insufficient funding and resource
allocation, inappropriate curriculum and pedagogy, poor teacher preparation and a poor
physical school environment (Darling-Hammond, 2000). These factors not only influence
an inadequate general education setting, but also create an additional challenge for those
students with special needs attending high poverty, urban schools. “Ultimately, among
those at greatest risk of being left behind are children with disabilities” (OSERS, 2002, p.
7). Further, poor intervention strategies and services contribute to the disproportionate
representation of minority students in special education that are mainly in a self
contained, segregated classroom (Blanchet, 2006). Regardless of historical inequalities,
high poverty, high performing schools exist. Although pockets of high achievement exist,
these schools are by no means “the norm.” Until the success of these schools are widely
replicated, there will continue to be a need to examine the role of structures and systems
for promoting high levels of academic performance, investigate the implementation and
sustainability of these structures and systems, and research the effectiveness of RTI for
students at risk.
10

General literature exists on RTI including the purpose, models, implementation of
the multiple tiers and factors that influence RTI. What is yet to be learned is school-wide
implementation of screening tools and assessments, measurement of student
responsiveness, incorporation of evidence based intervention strategies and the
maintenance of the fidelity of implementation in order to produce effective results for
student achievement. Additionally, it is critical to understand how these successful
systems and structures can be replicated at other schools with a culturally diverse
population of students living in poverty. While the outcomes of RTI implementation is
dependent on various factors such as selection and fidelity of interventions, decisions
about timeframes, criteria for movement between tiers, resources and professional
development (NJCLD, 2005), by examining data from the school and classroom, this
study will hopefully provide an analysis of the development and implementation of RTI
at an actual high poverty high achieving elementary school site.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to examine the role of organizational
structures and school systems that promote high levels of academic performance at a high
poverty, high achieving elementary school for at-risk students. In addition, this study
investigated the implementation and sustainability of these structures and systems that
contribute to the success of students with special needs in their Least Restrictive
Environment. Specifically, the study examined and determined if the use of one such
school reform effort, RTI would be an effective structure in serving as an early
11

intervention strategy and alternative to special education placement, especially for
students attending high poverty schools. Gaining awareness of trends and patterns
including performance data, interventions and services for students at risk in high poverty
schools was essential in understanding how to assist students gain academic success.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students attending
high poverty, high achieving schools?
a. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students in
special education?
2. What are the perceived school wide systems and structures that contribute
to high achievement in high poverty schools?
a. What are the systems and structures perceived to have the most impact
on the implementation of RTI?
3. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of achievement for all students?
Significance of the Study
With the authorization of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), greater emphasis has been placed on increased
accountability and improved student achievement. Schools are required to close the
achievement gap and provide effective interventions to all students regardless of race,
12

income or disability. However, the reality is that inequalities continue to exist among
students living in high poverty, especially for those with special needs.
Both NCLB and IDEA sought to improve student achievement for all students
through the use of early identification, scientifically based instructional practices and
differentiated instruction (Cummings, Atkins, Allison & Cole, 2008; Walker-Dalhouse et
al., 2009). Consistent with the provisions of IDEA that students should be educated in the
LRE, research has shown that there has been a shift with positive implications in special
education from students in segregated classrooms to participation in general education
classrooms (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Participation in general education classrooms
through the use of differentiated instruction is anticipated to decrease the
overrepresentation of diverse students in special education placements or for students that
have had inadequate instruction such as those students in high poverty schools (Walker-
Dalhouse et al., 2009). Because inappropriate placement for these students can have
significant consequences including lack of exposure to the core curriculum, negative
perceptions of one self or by others and increased racial segregation (U.S. Department of
Education, 1997), it is necessary to seek solutions to this issue in order to resolve this
inequality. Effective schools and programs exist that have systems and structures to
eliminate obstacles that students living in high poverty face in education. One such
program that serves as an early intervention and prevention model is Response to
Intervention (RTI). In schools with students at-risk, effective early intervention and
prevention models are paramount to their educational success.
13

The study was designed to increase the understanding of systems and structures
that promote the successful uniting of policy and best practice to increase academic
performance for students at high poverty schools. Additionally, it has become important
to focus research efforts on improving outcomes for all students using scientifically based
instruction prior to a referral to special education. As RTI is being implemented across
the United States, this research, as it specifically investigated a high poverty high
achieving school will contribute to the state, districts and schools’ understanding of the
influence of RTI programs in hopes to serve as an alternative to special education and
decrease overrepresentation of minority students in special education.
Limitations

Limitations of this study impacted the generalizability of this study’s findings and
conclusions.

• Study small sample size – due to time limitations, only one public
elementary school in Southern California
• Participant bias – interviews were conducted with staff members who
volunteered to participate in this study, therefore control over existing biases and
the truthfulness of the participants was out of the control of this researcher
• Analysis – the information triangulated from interviews, observations, and
artifacts was subject to the interpretation of the researcher and was filtered into
emerging themes which may not represent all participants viewpoints

14

Delimitations
Delimitations of this case study were determined by a group of doctoral
candidates who were focused on identifying structural and systemic practices that
contribute to increased student achievement in high poverty high achieving schools.
Based on some of the delimitations, external validity and generalizability were impacted.
• Purposeful sampling – the school site was selected based upon a list of pre-
determined criteria identified by the thematic dissertation group. Criteria
included: API score of 750+, Title I school with at least 40% free and reduced
lunch, similar school ranking of 8 or higher, and student enrollment of 500+
• Small Sample and Location– both the size of the sample and the location of
the site may limit the ability to generalize findings to other schools and school
districts. For the purpose of this study, 13 interviews with school staff was
conducted
• Time limitations – data collection was limited to a 3 month time period
from September - November
• Special Education settings – schools across the country offer different levels
of LRE. The systems and structures identified in this case study may not be
feasible based simply on the availability of different levels of LRE from site to
site.

15

Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the California Department of Education and
the thematic dissertation group defined the following terms as they relate to this study.
Academic Performance Index (API): Measurement of the academic performance
and progress of schools. It was part of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999.
API scores range from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The API target for all schools is
800.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): An accountability system mandated by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to monitor annual academic performance goals. It requires
each state to ensure that all schools and Local Educational Agencies (LEA) make
Adequate Yearly Progress. AYP criteria encompass four areas: participation rate, percent
proficient, API as an additional indicator for AYP, and graduation rate.
Differentiated Instruction: An approach to teaching and learning for students with
different abilities in the same classroom. The theory behind differentiated instruction is
that teachers should vary and adapt their approaches to fit the vast diversity of students in
the classroom.
Disproportionality: When students’ representation in special education programs or
specific education categories exceeds their proportional enrollment in a school’s general
population.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA): Established in 1975 to ensure
that all students receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Its intention was
16

to provide an individualized plan to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities
(Thomas & Brady, 2005).
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): An educational program that is
individualized to a specific child, designed to meet that child's unique needs, and from
which the child receives educational benefit (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
High Performing Schools: Operationally defined as schools whose API score meets
or exceed 800 and/or have a steadily increasing performance trajectory for three or more
years.
High Poverty Schools: Operationally defined as schools where 40% (or more) of
students receive free and reduced priced lunch
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA): A federal law ensuring services to
children with disabilities. It governs how special education, interventions and related
services are provided to children with disabilities
Individualized Education Program (IEP): A legal document that specifies the
special education program and related services to be provided to the student with a
disability. It addresses the unique needs of the student through the description of the
student's present levels of performance, goals and accommodations and modifications.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): The educational environment that is most
like that of typical children in which a student with a disability can achieve academic
success.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The
17

focus of NCLB was to increase accountability, focus on research-based practices, provide
quality education and empower parents.
Response to Intervention: A comprehensive, school wide, multi-level system to
provide assessment and intervention to maximize student achievement. RTI focuses on
effective intervention through earlier identification of students at risk.
Special Education: Specially designed instruction, programs and related services
designed to meet the unique educational needs of students with disabilities as outlined in
the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
Structure: Instructional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by
federal state or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official structure
of schools; not subject to change at the local school site.
System: Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students,
parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at the school site to ensure that school visions, missions,
and goals are met.
Tier 1: Interventions are differentiated instructional strategies that provide
academic support in a general education setting.
Tier 2: Interventions (i.e., specific math or reading intervention class) are provided
to students who are identified as at risk based on assessment data or have not been
successful with Tier I interventions.
Tier 3: is referred to as intensive individual interventions. Students who continue to
have difficulty receive intensive individual interventions.
Title I: Federally funded support for schools that are considered to be "at risk."
18

Primary qualification is through Free and Reduced Lunch counts.

Organization of Study

The dissertation began with Chapter One, which provided an overview of the
study including the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the significance of
the study, the research questions to be answered, limitations and delimitations and the
definition of terms. Chapter Two reviews the literature salient to the study beginning with
an examination of the various education federal policies, followed by RTI literature and
the factors that influence RTI implementation. Chapter Three presents the research
design, the chosen sample and population, instrumentation, data collection procedures,
data analysis process and ethical considerations for this study. Chapter Four presents the
findings of the study, with analysis and discussion of the data. Finally, Chapter Five
summarizes the study and discusses implications for policies and practice and
recommendations for future research. This study concludes with references and
appendices.
19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Federal mandates including the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act
(IDEIA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently referred to
as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have been influential in an attempt to equalize
educational opportunities for all students, especially those that are disadvantaged and
with disabilities. The largest percentage of students that receive special education
services qualify under the eligibility category of specific learning disability. About 40%
of students are classified as having a specific learning disability, followed by 22%
identified as having a speech or language impairment (Planty et al., 2009). Although
there has been a steady increase in the number and percentage of students receiving
special education services, current trends indicate a shift toward a more inclusive
educational setting. IDEIA 2004 has set forth the requirement of inclusion for students
with disabilities with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible.
Additionally, it enables schools to provide early intervention to those students struggling
in the general education classroom as well as an alternative means for identifying
students with learning disabilities.
The acceptance of the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a means for
differentiating instruction in the general education classroom is expected to reduce the
overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education
(Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009) as well as reduce the number of students struggling
academically. Through an educational reform such as RTI, states are requiring districts
20

and schools to focus on improving the quality of instruction for all students. This
literature review will examine different RTI approaches as well as highlight current RTI
research and effective school reform to provide support for the design and methodology
to be used in this study. It will focus on:
1. An examination of various education federal policies.
2. An examination of RTI literature.
3. Factors that influence RTI implementation.
Historical Background

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

As part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed on April 11, 1965. The intent of the act
was to provide equitable educational opportunities for underprivileged children (DeBray-
Pelot & McGuinn, 2009; McDonnell, 2005; Thomas & Brady, 2005). It was enacted to
enhance the learning experience of disadvantaged students and reduce the achievement
gap through the provision of federal support and financial resource allocation to schools.
The largest financial component of the act, Title I was intended to provide financial
assistance to educationally disadvantaged students living in high concentrations of
poverty.
Three distinct periods characterized the government’s role in education and its
relationship through Title I with states and local school districts. Initially, Title I was
established as a funding source for compartmentalized categorical programs organized at
a distance from the regular education classrooms. Programs were managed separately
21

outside of the general education classrooms, with Title I students being served through a
pullout or remedial tutoring model away from their teacher and peers (Fritzberg, 2004 &
McDonnell, 2005). During the second period, focus was on improved educational quality
and higher student achievement, although there was reduced federal spending for
education. The third phase represented the first time that states were responsible for
indentifying the required achievement levels of Title I eligible students. Title I was now
tied to the expanded state role in education and schools were held accountable to the
progress and achievement of Title I eligible students – ensuring that Title I students were
taught the core curriculum and were expected to meet state standards as all other students
(McDonnell, 2005).
No Child Left Behind

Due to the dissatisfaction of Congress with the slow progress of student
achievement with the implementation of the ESEA, major changes occurred with the
passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It was established as a reauthorization
of ESEA with the basic premise – to provide quality education to all students, including
those with disabilities (McDonnell, 2005; McLaughlin, 2010; Shaul & Ganson, 2005). It
is the most current federal legislation, based on the belief that setting high standards and
establishing measurable goals improves student educational performance, and holds
schools and districts accountable for student achievement.
NCLB removed the ambiguity about the timeline for progress and established that
by 2013-2014, all students should reach proficient levels in reading/language arts,
mathematics and science (Fritzberg, 2004; NCLB, 2001; Kim & Sunderman, 2005; Shaul
22

& Ganson, 2005). Major objectives of NCLB are increasing accountability for results,
increased freedom for states, use of scientifically based methods and parent choice
(NCLB, 2001; Thomas & Brady, 2005). As a means to increase school accountability, it
included more testing, examination of graduation rates and the definition of highly
qualified teachers. All states, districts, and schools receiving federal funds under Title I
are required to implement the changes described in NCLB (U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 2009). NCLB allows states and school districts flexibility in the
use of federal education funds. Each district is allowed to use the funds at their discretion
in order to meet their specific needs. Under NCLB, emphasis is made on utilizing
educational programs that are scientifically based. Federal funding is used to support
programs and instructional methods that have been proven through scientific research.
NCLB highlights that states work on closing the achievement gap between high and
low performing students, including those disadvantaged and minority students. Unlike
ESEA, NCLB focuses and more precisely defines and expands adequate yearly progress
(AYP). The requirements of AYP are considered as the central mechanism for improving
school performance and the academic achievement of student subgroups (Kim &
Sunderman, 2005). To ensure the success of students within these subgroups
(economically disadvantaged, major ethnic and racial group, disabled students, limited
English proficiency), achievement data are to be disaggregated (McLaughlin, 2010).
Schools are held accountable for improving the academic performance of students in all
subgroups. Through the increase in the amount that school districts are required to
expend per child for extra services specifically for students with disabilities, states are
23

allowed to adapt assessments to small groups with modified achievement standards or
utilize alternative assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). This ensures that
students with disabilities are assessed properly and included in AYP determinations
through analyzing data, assessments and goals in order to achieve grade-level proficiency
by 2014.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act

Prior to the 1970’s the experience of students with disabilities in the educational
system varied. Very few public schools considered education for students with
disabilities within the school facilities and often educated them in separate settings
(Handler, 2007). Students were either denied an education or received inadequate
services. The isolation of students with disabilities from general education settings
became justified as society expected orderly classrooms, free of the disturbance and lack
of control that students with disabilities were assumed to bring (Hoffman, 1975). As
more frequent challenges of educational and community advocates pressured schools and
districts, the need to provide an appropriate education for all students, regardless of
ethnicity or handicapping condition became an issue (Chin, 2004).
Although many districts were required to provide education to disabled students,
Congress discovered that over 1.75 million children with disabilities in the United States
were being denied services on the basis of their handicap. Over 8 million children were
not receiving appropriate services and many children with disabilities were not provided
an appropriate educational placement (Zettel, 1977). In 1975, the Education of All
Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was created in response to Congressional concern for
24

two groups of children: the more than 1 million children with disabilities who were
excluded entirely from the education system and the children with disabilities who had
limited access to the education system and were denied an appropriate education. It was a
federal mandate for schools to provide equal educational opportunity for students,
including handicapped children between the ages of five and eighteen with the emphasis
on special education and related services. The law further required that children with
disabilities receive instruction in a setting that closely resembles a general education
class, while continuing to meet their needs.
The heart of EHA established that all handicapped children must be educated. In
addition, procedural safeguards are provided to ensure the parent and student rights.
Parent rights include parental consent prior to an evaluation or consideration for
placement, rights to review all educational records, request for an independent evaluation
and entitlement to due process. EHA further addressed the evaluation process. A non-
discriminatory evaluation was required by a multidisciplinary team and should address all
areas of academic need (Skiba et al., 2008). Finally, EHA required that each student with
a disability was given the right to have an Individual Education Program (IEP), be
educated in the Least Restricted Environment (LRE) and offered a Free and Appropriate
Public Education (FAPE).
With increased awareness of students with disabilities within the educational
environment, the evolution of EHA continued through amendments made in 1986
(Huefner, 2000). In 1990, the EHA was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act.

25

IDEA expanded primary disability categories to 13 to further include autism, traumatic
brain injury, multiple impairments and deaf-blindness.
Reauthorization of IDEA (IDEA 1997)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 moved from simply
providing students with disabilities access to education to focusing on teaching and
learning, establishing high expectations for all children and ensuring a positive transition
after graduation. The intention of the reauthorization of IDEA was to strengthen the role
of parents and teachers in educational planning and decision making for the educational
benefit for the student. Some of the major issues incorporated into the final regulations
of IDEA 1997 included: involvement in the general curriculum, participation in state and
district wide assessments, and the involvement of the general education teacher.
An Individualized Education Program (IEP) was developed for students that meet
the eligibility requirement for special education to enhance their involvement and
progress in the general curriculum as well as inclusion of the general education teacher as
an active IEP member. As a condition of State eligibility for funding, the 1997
amendments required that all students with disabilities participate in state and district-
wide assessment programs. Students with disabilities participated in assessments given
proper accommodations and modifications as determined by the IEP team. Alternate
assessments would be available to those students that were unable to participate in the
general assessment programs. Further, IDEA 1997 required that schools report the results
to the public as frequently as they report on non-disabled students.

26

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004
The Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) is the most current
version of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, addressing the educational
needs of children with disabilities. The reauthorization maintained the basic premise of
IDEA, but also implemented substantive revisions (IDEA, 2004). Some of the specific
changes in the IDEIA addressed: the definition of highly qualified teachers, the role of
the parent, prevention of the over-identification or disproportionate representation of
minority children with disabilities and changes in the identification for specific learning
disability.
IDEIA and NCLB are in alignment to ensure that knowledgeable teachers are
teaching students through the requirement of “highly qualified” teachers (IDEA, 2004;
Russo, Osboren & Borreca, 2005). They must hold at least a bachelor’s degree, meet full
state certification or licensing, and demonstrate competency in the subject that they are
teaching (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Among the most critical problems in special education continues to be the
disproportionate representation of minority students. The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) has addressed concerns with the
overrepresentation of minority in students in special education. Changes have been made
to address disproportionality through the implementation of new requirements. Each state
must have policies and procedures in place to prevent the improper over identification of
minority students in special education. These policies and procedures must address the
placement of children into specialized services via the collection and examination of data
27

regarding disproportionality. Many states have been required to implement a system to
review and revise policies, practices and procedures, provide disaggregated data on
suspensions and expulsions based on race and ethnicity, and monitor the compliance of
Local Educational Agencies (LEA) (IDEA, 2004).
A key revision in the law signified an important movement in ideas regarding
learning disabilities. In an effort to reduce misdiagnosis, IDEIA reinforced its alignment
with NCLB ensuring that a diagnosis of LD was not due to lack of reading instruction or
a student’s racial, cultural and language background, which may result in
disproportionate representation of minority students in special education (NCLB, 2001).
A shift was made from the previous IQ-achievement discrepancy model in the
identification of a student with learning disabilities (LD) to the use of a process based on
the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention and other alternative
research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability. This alternative method to pre-identification is referred to as the response-to-
intervention or RTI model. (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; IDEIA, 2004;
James, 2004; Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009; Klinger & Edwards, 2006). While
federal policies such as NCLB and IDEIA serve as structures in this study, the following
research studies will illustrate the conceptual structures of the RTI framework as well as
systems that are crucial for its implementation.
Response to Intervention
Response-to-Intervention (RTI) is a framework that has emerged with the emphasis
on improving the teaching and learning processes (National Joint Committee on Learning
28

Disabilities [NJCLD], 2005). In addition to serving as an alternative method of
identifying students with learning disabilities, RTI is a means of early identification for
all struggling students, at risk for school failure. IDEIA 2004 authorizes districts to use
up to 15% of special education money for non-identified children receiving early
intervention services. Key components that are critical to the implementation of RTI
include: (a) high-quality instruction, (b) research-based instruction, (c) universal
screening, (d) continuous classroom monitoring, (e) research-based interventions, (f)
progress monitoring during instruction and interventions, (g) fidelity of program
implementation, (h) staff development and collaboration, and (i) parent involvement
(California Department of Education, 2010; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007; NJCLD, 2005).
Before implementation of an RTI model can occur, structural components must be
clearly defined. The following section will identify the structures of the delivery of the
RTI framework. Structures that will be discussed include the way in which the service-
delivery model is arranged, movement between tiers, and guidelines for progress
monitoring. Further, implications for special education and cultural considerations will
also be discussed.
Response to Intervention Models
Similarities exist among RTI models. They share common components including
the use of scientifically based instruction and interventions with increased intensity,
continuous monitoring to assure progress, opportunities for students to respond to
instruction and instructional fidelity (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). Two

29

broad approaches have emerged: the problem solving model and the standard treatment
protocol.
Problem solving. In the late 1980s, prereferral interventions were utilized to assist
students that were having difficulties in the general education classroom (Gersten &
Dimino, 2006). This was the beginning to the problem solving approach in which a team
of practitioners provided practical suggestions and strategies to use with struggling
students. The problem solving approach is highly individualized, with research-based
interventions that are specifically personalized for each student (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs,
& McKnight, 2006). This approach allows for continual collection of data, monitoring
and modification depending on the students’ responsive to intervention. Although this
model may vary among districts, a common four step process is utilized: (a) determine
the problem, (b) analyze the cause and develop an intervention, (c) implement the
intervention, and (d) monitor student progress (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).
Using the problem solving approach requires clinical judgment and expertise among
practitioners in order to accurately assess and implement interventions.
Standard treatment protocol. Serving as an alternative to the problem-solving
model, the standard treatment protocol is conducted with groups of struggling students
for a predetermined, fixed duration (e.g., 10-15 weeks). These students share similar
difficulties and are provided research-based interventions that have been standardized and
proven effective (Johnson et al., 2006). The standard treatment protocol model emerged
from early reading intervention research, where one standard treatment was provided (Al
Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Vellutino, Scanlon & Sipay, 1996). Fuchs et al. (2005) proposed
30

that advantages of the standard protocol model includes one intervention to implement,
making it easier to train teachers to implement one intervention appropriately and that
several students would be able to participate in an effective instructional strategy.
Illustrated by Vellutino and colleagues (1996), two-thirds of the tutored students
receiving 30-minute reading intervention five days a week demonstrated good
improvement and progressed to grade level reading. Thus indicating that the standard
treatment protocol for the students in this study prevented reading difficulties for majority
of students.
Large Scale RTI Models
As discussed above, the problem-solving model and standard treatment protocol
use different methods for addressing students’ needs. However, they are similar in that
they both emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach in their methods of
identifying and addressing individuals’ needs, use multi-tiered levels of intervention, and
base decisions on data (Fuchs et al., 2003; Marston, 2005). Further, both models involve
group problem solving, progress monitoring, the use of evidence-based interventions and
consideration of special education services only after students have not responded to the
intensive interventions (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003).
A meta-analysis conducted by Burns et al., (2005) revealed strong effects with large
scale RTI implementation. Strong effects were noted in improved student outcomes as
well as a decrease in the number of students referred for special education. According to
the study, with the utilization of field-based RTI models, less than 2% of the population

31

was identified as having a learning disability in comparison to the previously reported
5.7% (U. S. Department o f Education, 2002).
Currently, four large-scale RTI problem-solving models have been identified by
Fuchs et al. (2003). These four widely presented large scale implementations of RTI
include: the Heartland Agency Model in Iowa, Ohio’s Intervention Based Assessment
(IBA), Pennsylvania’s Instructional Support Teams (IST), and Minneapolis Public
School’s Problem-Solving Model (PSM). This section will review research on the large-
scale implementation models that utilize RTI principles.
Heartland agency model. The Heartland Area Educational Agency 11 in Iowa
implemented a problem-solving model in 1985 as a statewide alternative to identifying
students having difficulties in the classroom. As part of the reform, the school personnel
utilized a four-level process to identify students having classroom difficulties (Ikeda &
Gustafson, 2002). The problem-solving process at each level is intended to be the same.
Educators identify the problem, analyze the roots of the problem, develop goals, execute
the plan, monitor progress, evaluate effectiveness and make necessary modifications
(Fuchs et al., 2003). According to Ikeda and Gustafson (2002), at Level I, teachers
consult with the parents in order to resolve any academic or behavioral problems. At
Level II, the teacher consults with the school’s Building Assistance Team (BAT). This
consultation involves the identification of the student’s difficulties as well as the
selection, implementation and monitoring of appropriate interventions. Should the
student continue to have problems at Level II, they move to Level III, which involves the
Heartland Agency personnel. Heartland staff consists of educators with increased
32

knowledge of special education and more intensive interventions. Finally, if students are
not successful at Level III, they move to Level IV in which special education eligibility is
considered.
In this model, a comparison is made between the student’s classroom performance
and learning rate with what is expected of the peers in the same class. Classroom
performance is the driving force behind the determination if a student is responsive or not
to the intervention (Fuchs et al., 2003). Emphasis is made on collaboration, Building
Assistance Teams (BATs) and progress monitoring with the assurance of staff
development (Ikeda, Tilly, Stumme, Volmer, & Allison, 1996).
Minneapolis public school’s problem solving model. Developed in 1993, the
Minneapolis Public Schools’ Problem-Solving Model (PSM) was used to assist with
interventions, referral, evaluation, and eligibility decision making for students with
academic difficulties (Marston, Muyskens, Lau & Canter, 2003) and as a means to
increase teachers’ focus on classroom instruction and accommodate diverse students
(Fuchs et al., 2003). PSM uses a four-level problem solving approach, determines
progress based not only on test scores, rather on multiple data sources, refers students for
special education services based on lack of academic progress given intensive
interventions in the general education setting, and uses a non-categorical approach to
special education eligibility (Fuchs et al., 2003).
In order to identify and support students having academic difficulties, the model
follows a sequence of steps, which includes describing the student’s problem, developing
and implementing instructional strategies, monitoring student progress and intervention
33

effectiveness and continuing the cycle. These steps occur in three stages with an
emphasis on problem solving within the general education environment. In stage one,
classroom intervention - global screening is conducted of all students. General education
teachers modify instruction and monitor student progress. Additionally, information is
gathered regarding student cultural and economic background. In stage two, problem-
solving team interventions - students having difficulties are identified. Interventions are
refined and continue to be provided in the general education classroom and progress
monitoring continues by a multidisciplinary team. Consideration is given to cultural and
linguistic variables. Students who are not responding to instruction in stage two are
placed in stage three, at which time a special education referral is made (Marston et al.,
2003).
Ohio’s intervention based assessment (IBA). During the 1992-1993 school year,
IBA was introduced by the Ohio State Department of Education as a voluntary school-
based initiative (Fuchs et al., 2003). The purpose of IBA is to establish a plan for any
student with academic or behavioral problems (Telzrow, McNamara & Hollinger, 2000).
Additionally, students requiring special education services is determined by a
collaborative, multidisciplinary team through the use of data from evaluations and
assessments (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003; McNamara & Hollinger,
2003). According to Telzrow et al. (2000), multidisciplinary teams should involve at least
the principal, school psychologist, and special and general education teachers. They
conduct problem-solving activities that include: defining the problem, obtaining baseline

34

data, goal setting, determining the cause of the problem, composing a treatment plan, and
reviewing data to determine responsiveness and progress from the baseline.
Telzrow et al. (2000) conducted a statewide study of IBA programs in 227 schools
to evaluate the fidelity of problem-solving implementation by multidisciplinary teams
and the relationship to student outcome. Although problem-solving components were
implemented with varying degrees of fidelity by multidisciplinary teams, overall
improvements were discovered in student performance and fidelity ratings were
correlated with student outcome.
McNamara and Hollinger (2003) studied a comparison between the implementation
of IBA and a previously used prereferral intervention model, Intervention Assistance
Team (IAT) at 155 elementary schools. While IBA required documentation of student
performance and progress monitoring, IAT did not. In addition, when determining special
education eligibility, IBA required a multidisciplinary team to identify and examine
appropriate and successful interventions. The results of the study revealed that the use of
IBA decreased the number of students eligible for special education and increased the
number of students eligible for intervention.
Pennsylvania’s instructional support teams (IST). Established in 1990 by the
Pennsylvania Board of Education, instructional support teams (IST) are nationally
recognized as a statewide prereferral intervention program as a means to reduce the over
identification of students in special education (Fuchs et al., 2003; Kovaleski & Glew,
2006) and shift the focus of special education to instruction in the general education
environment (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003). Utilizing a collaborative
35

problem-solving model, the IST includes a support teacher, general education teacher,
principal, and needed specialists (Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow & Swank, 1999).
Modifications were made to the original model, Teacher Assistance Teams (TAT)
with the introduction of curriculum-based assessment (CBA). CBA was utilized to assess
students’ performance, assist with appropriate selection of instructional strategies and
monitor student progress (Kovaleski & Glew, 2006). Instructional support was provided
to the general education teacher in order to assist with meeting students’ needs. Prior to a
student being referred for special education evaluation, intervention through the IST
process is required, which targets all areas of need within the general education
classroom (Kovaleski et al., 1999).
Identification of Students
Prior to the implementation of any intervention such as the RTI model, a critical
first step is to identify students who may be struggling or at-risk in their general
education curriculum by conducting school wide screening of all students within the first
month of school (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Johnson et al., 2006). In order to identify
students at risk, best practices according to Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) in the screening
process involves assessing all students using state or district tools that predict
performance in math and reading or identifying students that score below the 25th
percentile on current achievement tests.
To prevent over identification of students, screening is conducted in conjunction
with at least five weeks of progress monitoring. It is an iterative process that occurs
throughout the year and at all grade levels and allows for the comparison of data between
36

group and individual skills. Screening allows for the identification of students that need
to move between tiers, allows administrators to get a glimpse of teachers that require
further support and since screening is performed at every grade level, enables teachers to
identify students that need support that may not have in the prior years (Johnson et al.,
2006). Screening is performed through the use of either criterion or normative reference.
Criterion reference demonstrates proficiency or mastery on a particular skill whereas;
normative is in comparison to others. Because criterion measures provide more accurate
information regarding skill acquisition, it is preferred. Screening is the entry point to
tiered instruction using the RTI model.
Three Tiered Intervention Hierarchy
RTI uses a multi-tiered approach that focuses on early intervention and prevention
for those struggling students. Although there is no universal model, most models have
three to four tiers of instruction as shown in Figure 2.1. At each tier, the intensity of
academic intervention increases. Intensity is accomplished through the use of teacher-
centered and direct instruction, increased frequency and duration, smaller student
groupings and experienced teachers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
37

Figure 2.1: Example of Multi-Tiered Approach

Note: Adapted from Gettinger, M & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a response to
intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 198-213.

Tier 1. Students receive whole group instruction in the general education setting
and are exposed to universal interventions in all subjects. Differentiated instruction and
supports are provided to those students that have been identified as being at-risk.
This tier usually addresses the needs of 80-90% of students (California Department of
Education, 2009). Additionally, district involvement is included in the selection of
evidence-based curricula and professional development. Teachers are responsible for
implementation and documentation of the interventions (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001).
Tier 2. Students in Tier 2 are provided more intensive services and interventions. In
addition to instruction in the general education setting, students participate in teacher
directed, targeted, small group instruction. Groups do not typically exceed three students
and they share similar strengths and weaknesses. Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) recommend

38

group instruction at least 3 days a week for 30-minute sessions. Approximately 15% of
students in the population are served in Tier 2 (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007).
Tier 3. The 1-5% of the students that continue to encounter learning difficulties
after interventions receives individual intensive interventions (California Department of
Education, 2009). Instruction is highly focused with high intensity. Students that are
nonresponsive to targeted interventions at Tier 3 are then considered for special
education. During participation in each tier of the RTI model, progress monitoring is
conducted to determine student progress and the need for movement between tiers.
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring is an important feature in the RTI framework. It assists with
the determination of students with learning disabilities, provides data for teachers to track
student progress and determines the benefits of intensive instruction (Johnson et al.,
2006). Elliot and Fuchs (1997) suggested that the following characteristics exist during
progress-monitoring: (a) quick administration, (b) have reliability and validity, (c)
correspond to what the student is learning, (d) assist in the development of interventions,
and (e) be sensitive to gains in student academic performance.
Embedded within the tiered model is progress monitoring. While screening informs
educators of those students at risk by using criterion measurements, progress monitoring
reveals growth and progress over a period of time during exposure to instructional
interventions (Johnson et al., 2006). This type of formative evaluation assists with
instructional decision-making such as the identification of students with special needs,
designing interventions and diagnostic information (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Gettinger &
39

Stoiber, 2007). In Tier 1, the classroom teacher can ascertain how to change and make
adjustments to instructional strategies in order to improve student achievement and
proficiency. In addition, students can be identified if they need more intensive instruction
and moved to the next tier. Progress monitoring in Tier 2 and beyond determines if
student learning has been accomplished at a certain rate. Long-term achievement for
students is dependent upon decisions being made in a timely manner. Best practice for
monitoring responsiveness for at-risk students is through the use of monitoring tools to
assess students in the area of difficulty. Assessment should be conducted every 8 weeks,
with increased frequency for Tier 2 and beyond. Progress through tiers is determined by
normative or criterion referenced estimates for weekly improvement (Fuchs & Fuchs,
2001).
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) is one assessment tool that fulfills these
criteria. CBM serves as the foundation for many using the RTI framework (Marston et
al., 2003). It is commonly used for progress monitoring for both students in general and
special education. It allows for simple administration for measuring academic areas (e.g.
reading, math, written language and spelling). Data is collected for all students three
times a year. Through the collection of data, teachers are provided with information about
those students who are at risk and not achieving benchmarks and can contribute to
instructional decisions and intervention effectiveness (Ardoin, 2006; Johnson et al.,
2006).
Deno and colleagues (2009) conducted a study to describe a model of a school wide
progress monitoring system that was employed for a school that was not meeting state
40

standards. They discussed the procedures that were necessary in measuring students’
growth and screening for those at risk. In the study, all students were screened three times
a year, students that were identified as struggling academically were monitored biweekly
and data was collected and appropriately analyzed by the classroom teachers. The results
revealed that monitoring is possible with minimal time and resources and that student
progress and projection on state tests can be inferred through the data. Ardoin (2006)
supported the use of CBM as a means for progress monitoring and utilized data to
demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions. Further, he emphasized the time period a
student is instructed in a particular tier and asserts that it would be beneficial to determine
in a shorter period of time whether an intervention would result in adequate global gains.
Table 2.1 highlights some important differences between the tiers. It provides
guidelines for how a school or district might address the delivery of the tiers including:
the definition, students the intervention targets, program, instruction, who provides the
intervention, where the intervention is provided, how many students are being serviced
during the intervention, how much time the intervention will be delivered and
assessments utilized to determine how students respond to the intervention.

41

Table 2.1: Overview of Tiers 1, 2 and 3
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Definition Universal
interventions with
evidence-based
curricula and
continual
professional
development
Instructional
intervention in small
groups in addition to
general education
instruction.
Intensive individual
instruction
Focus All students Students identified
with difficulties who
have not responded to
Tier 1 efforts
Students identified
with difficulties who
have not responded to
Tier 1 and Tier 2
Program Scientifically based
instruction and
curriculum
emphasizing the
critical elements.
Specialized,
scientifically based
instruction and
curriculum
emphasizing the
critical elements
Sustained, intensive,
scientifically based
instruction and
curriculum highly
responsive to
students’ needs
Instruction Opportunities to
practice throughout
the school day
Additional support,
opportunities to
practice, review skills

Carefully designed
and implemented,
explicit, systematic
instruction
Interventionalist General education
teacher
General education
teacher, reading
specialist, school
psychologist, or
trained parapro-
fessional.
Specialist/coaches,
special education
teacher
Setting General education
classroom
Setting designated by
school
Setting designated by
school
Grouping Flexible grouping Small groups (4-6
students)
Individual or small
groups (1-3 students)
Time/duration Minimum 90 minutes
per day
Several times per
week for 30 or more
min or as frequently
as daily
Daily at least 50
minutes per week
Assessment Benchmark
assessments three
times a year
Progress monitoring
twice a month
Progress monitoring
twice a month and
learning
Note: Adapted from Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The
University of Texas at Austin. (2005). Implementing the 3-tier reading model: Reducing
reading difficulties for kindergarten through third grade students (2nd ed.). Austin, TX:
Author.
42

Implications for Special Education
The benefits of RTI have included early intervention for students who are at risk for
academic failure and an alternative for students identified as having learning disabilities.
RTI is intended to provide services to students that are having academic difficulty and
ensure that they no longer have to “wait to fail” to receive appropriate interventions
(National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010). Using the RTI model, all students
in the general education setting are screened and those at risk are identified. Early
intervention and progress monitoring are provided. If the student continues to have
difficulties, data is available on instructional responses prior to a special education
referral. This differs from prereferral interventions and the use of Student Study teams in
the 1980s. Instruction typically did not involve early intervention and referral
recommendations were made based primarily on the teacher’s anecdotal descriptions of
the student’s academic performance (Gersten & Dimino, 2006).
In addition, the use of the IQ-discrepancy model has been examined as the cause
for the increase in special education enrollment and costs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). With
the implementation of IDEIA 2004, school districts can now move away from identifying
students with learning disabilities based on the discrepancy between IQ and achievement.
Instead, responses to adequate instruction and intervention are used as part of the
evaluation (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Further, additional information is gathered
through a file review, observation and interviews to ensure an accurate evaluation of the
student. By using quality instruction through the use of progress monitoring and
evidenced-based interventions in a general education setting, the over-identification of
43

students for special education services should decrease (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Klinger &
Edwards, 2006).
Cultural Considerations
Central to RTI is scientific evidence based instruction. However, vital to successful
implementation is having the knowledge of “what works with whom, by whom and in
what contexts” (Klinger & Edwards, 2006, p. 108). This infers that teachers should
provide evidence-based instruction that has been conducted by similar culturally diverse
students. As our society continues to increase in diversity, it is necessary for school staff
to increase their understanding of the relationship between culture and students’
behaviors within an appropriate context. In order to adequately assess that students are
having academic difficulties, analyses should be conducted by assessing the classroom,
teacher and school.
In forming culturally responsive RTI models, the perspectives of Wiley’s (1996)
framework of accommodation, incorporation and adaptation are taken into consideration
when working with students and families of diverse backgrounds. First, accommodation
requires that school staff have a greater understanding of the differences among their
students involving communication and literacy and account for these differences. Many
early school experiences such as reading begin in the home environment and the teacher
should build on that foundation. Next, incorporation involves the integration of the
diverse knowledge of the community within the curriculum. Building a connection with
families allows for a reciprocal learning environment. Finally, adaptation is the
acculturation to the school environment. Often, parents of students from diverse families
44

or families living in poverty do not understand how to assist their child with academic
development, therefore, it becomes the school’s responsibility to empower them with this
knowledge (Clark, 1988).
Klinger and Edwards (2006) propose a four-tiered RTI model for culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Consist with RTI, Tier 1 should include evidence-based
instruction. Included in this tier is the requirement to have a teacher that has culturally
responsive attributes. Ladson-Billings (1994) identify several factors that make
instructional practices culturally responsive to the needs of diverse students. These
factors include: academic achievement, cultural competence, and sociopolitical
consciousness. In the classroom, the indicator of academic achievement evolves. The
classroom teacher believes in their students’ capabilities, explains the academic
expectations, and supports students’ development and achievement. The second factor of
cultural competence addresses how teachers can improve their instructional practices
within the classroom through understanding culture and its role, learning about their
students’ cultures and using their culture within instruction. The final factor of
sociopolitical consciousness relates to the issues of social justice. These include teachers’
knowledge starting at the school level all the way to the national level, their investment in
the public good and experiences that connect to society. Tier 1 emphasizes the need for
professional development in order for teachers to become more culturally responsive.
According to Klinger and Edwards (2006), there is not much research at Tier 2 for
culturally and linguistically diverse students to warrant additional intervention or
strategies than those students identified as being at risk. In Tier 3, a Study Team is
45

suggested of individuals with expertise in culturally responsive pedagogy. Assessment,
interventions and goals should be highly individualized as in the problem solving
approach (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). In addition, observations should be made in various
school settings. Finally, Tier 4 would involve a referral to special education.
In sum, the RTI process has thrived as more than a method to determine special
education eligibility. It has become a school wide implementation strategy to expose all
students to high quality instruction while providing the necessary supports to meet the
needs of struggling students within a general education classroom. Through screening
and progress monitoring data, students are identified early and provided with specific
evidence-based interventions and movement through tiers as deemed necessary. Large
field-based RTI models have resulted in positive student outcomes and have shown to
reduce the number of students being referred to special education (Burns & Ysseldyke,
2005). However, the success of the intervention is dependent on RTI implementation
fidelity.
Research has revealed that successful schools focus on a school climate of high
standards, implementation of a coherent standards-based curriculum, frequent
assessment, professional development and ensuring adequate instructional resources
(Levine, Cooper & Hilliard, 2000; Williams et al., 2005 & Reeves, 2003). In the next
section, effective systems for RTI implementation will be addressed. Due to the limited
literature regarding the factors that influence the implementation of RTI, incorporated
into this discussion will be an examination of the sustainability of Comprehensive School
Reform (CSR) data in an attempt to channel the implementation of an effort such as RTI.
46

While there are several systems that may influence the implementation of the structures
of the chosen RTI model and tiers, specific systems for the purpose of this research that
will be discussed include: professional development, leadership, and resources.
Factors that Affect RTI Implementation
While many unanswered questions exist regarding the implementation of RTI, it is
advantageous to investigate other research and studies on educational reform efforts that
have been utilized in schools nationwide as a guide for RTI. Comprehensive School
Reforms (CSR) were developed due to disappointment and failure of earlier reforms. Its
focus was to enhance teaching and learning for all students in the classroom through
changing what teachers do with curriculum and instruction through the use of research-
based practices (Desimone, 2002). A meta-analysis conducted by Borman, Hewes,
Overman, and Brown (2003) examined 29 CSR in which the results revealed that when
schools adapt a CSR to their circumstances, student academic achievement is enhanced.
Similarities between RTI and Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) that have been
identified include their commitment to improving student performance. Common
components to both reforms focus on: 1) research-based strategies, instruction, and
interventions, 2) high quality classroom instruction in order to meet state standards, 3)
provision of staff development and collaboration, 4) assurance of leadership support, 5)
progress monitoring, 6) parental and community involvement, and 7) resources
(California Department of Education, 2009; Desimone, 2002). In this section, an
examination of the effective systems that influence the implementation of RTI will be
limited to: professional development, leadership and resources.
47

Professional Development

Professional development and ongoing training is critical to the success of school
change (McLaughlin, 1976) including with CSR. Datnow and Stringfield (2000),
summarize their findings from a longitudinal case study of the implementation of six
CSR models. They concluded that schools that participated in high quality professional
development were successful in the sustainability of a reform whereas schools that did
not provide training did not sustain reform. Implementation of a school reform by
teachers was more apt and effective if professional development programs provided
content specific materials and training and were customized to their needs (Desimone,
2002). Smith et al. (1997) discovered that trainings that were more specific to classroom
curriculum and interventions were more likely to be utilized.
Vital to the fidelity, integrity and sustainability of RTI, is professional development
(Danielson et al., 2007; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Gettinger& Stoiber, 2008; Walker-
Dalhouse et al., 2009). Ongoing professional development and support related to RTI
including processes, procedures and practices is essential. It is necessary because RTI
requires classroom teachers to acquire and expand their knowledge regarding models,
interventions, assessments, program monitoring and materials (Butler, 2009; Danielson et
al., 2007; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007). In the study conducted on the problem-solving
model in Minneapolis, Marston et al. (2003) noted the importance of professional
development when implementing RTI models. Two approaches were utilized. The
prevalent approach was to train and send specified lead staff to all the schools in order to
conduct training at the schools’ staff meetings or staff development time. In the second
48

approach, all district psychologists and lead resource specialists were trained and then
provided on-site training at their school sites. Regardless of the approach, the results
indicated that teacher training on the problem-solving model was paramount to the
effectiveness of RTI.
Studies have revealed that professional development is one of the key factors that
are essential when implementing any systematic change as in RTI (Danielson et al., 2007;
Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007; Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, & Ball, 2007; Walker-
Dalhouse et al., 2009). Central to the implementation of RTI are trained teachers with the
knowledge and use of scientifically based classroom interventions. Gettinger and Stoiber
(2007) examined the professional development component of the Exemplary Model of
Early Reading Growth and Excellence (EMERGE) program. Focus was on improving
teachers’ understanding of language and literacy and their application of scientifically
based instruction. Training was achieved through monthly 3-hour sessions to attain skills
in the implementation of Tier 1, progress monitoring, use of data about literacy to adapt
instruction and development of high quality literacy environments.
Team problem solving skills are beneficial in the implementation of RTI models,
examination of students’ work and decision-making about movement among tiers (Canter
et al., 2008). In their examination of large-scale RTI models, Burns and Ysseldyke (2005)
found that ongoing training and the use of collaborative teams were important to the
success of all four models. In order for students to demonstrate improvement,
Kratochwill et al. (2007) report the necessity of professional development structures such
as teacher networks and study groups, time spent on activities and working with teachers
49

from the same school or department were more effective in changing teacher practice.
Strong professional development in collaboration with a newly adopted program will
help create sustainability and integrity of the program. Further, providing staff with
training in several instructional areas will ensure that students are being educated by
“highly qualified” teachers (Milliken, 2003).
Leadership Support

Leadership has also been recognized as a vital role to support effective
implementation of reforms (Datnow, 2005; Datnow & Castellano, 2001; Desimone,
2002; Hallinger, & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004). The role of a leader has
expanded from district and administrative personnel to include teachers as leaders that
may assume leadership in the implementation of specific reforms.
District leadership. A positive correlation exists between strong district support and
effective reform implementation (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). Datnow (2005)
conducted a longitudinal case study of 13 elementary schools in a culturally and
linguistically diverse urban district to examine the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)
implementation process over a four-year period. Results of the study suggest that it is
imperative for the existence of both district and principal leadership to sustain CSR
implementation. In the same study, Datnow (2005) discovered and confirmed the
influence of leadership on the implementation and sustainability of the reform. For
example, in the study initially, the superintendent and assistant superintendent were
supportive of promoting the CSR models in their district. In addition, they had the
support of the teachers’ union and the district agreed to provide resources in the form of
50

professional development, materials and additional staff. However, when a change
occurred in district leadership, support for school reform in that particular district no
longer existed (Datnow, 2005).
Principal leadership. Research exists on the principal’s role and it’s importance to
both the implementation and sustainability of a reform (Datnow, 2005; Datnow &
Stringfield, 2000). In a study conducted by Smith et al., (1997), results revealed that
success with reform was greater among principals that were cognizant of the reform
process, faculty strengths and allowing faculty ownership of the reform. Datnow and
Stringfield (2000) additionally denote that the role of the principal is to be a leader of the
reform, encourage teachers to participate in choosing a reform design, and provide
professional development for the teachers.
Within an RTI framework, principal leadership is necessary not only for the
introduction of the intervention to the school, but also with sustaining the intervention.
Principal leadership is an essential ingredient to the implementation of RTI (Canter et al.,
2008; Kashima et al., 2009; Milliken, 2006; Shepherd, 2006). Regardless of the program
reform, it is necessary that any school innovation receive support of the school leaders.
After conducting a study with five Virginia school districts, Shepherd (2006), revealed
five essential components and the principal’s role to the high level of success with the
implementation of Virginia’s model of RTI. Commitment to the school through
participation and support, the creation of structures and membership, modeling of
collaborative meetings, bridging professional development and school improvement and
collaboration with other administrators were among these factors. Through their active
51

commitment, school principals demonstrated their leadership role and ultimately, their
devotion to student success.
Principals that are knowledgeable and promote the use of practices and processes
of the RTI framework to include scientifically based practices, problem solving, and
progress monitoring are more equipped to handle the complexities of a reform such as
RTI (Canter et al., 2008; Kashima et al., 2009). Effective leaders influence the success of
an organization through their knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment
(Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2003). In addition to facilitating buy-in from the school
staff during the early stages of RTI (Kashima et al., 2009), school leaders make certain
that teachers have adequate resources to implement the RTI model. In their leadership
role, principals provide necessary equipment, time for training and professional
development, acknowledge the need to accommodate for team and collaboration
meetings, and provide extra support if needed. (Marston et al., 2003; Marzano et al.,
2005). In many ways, the principal is influential to student academic achievement
through their knowledge of the details and inner workings of programs and instructional
strategies, communication, support and development of teachers, focus on goals, student
outcomes, and provision of adequate resources (Marzano et al., 2005).
Teacher leadership. Teachers are also paramount to the success of school reform
effort (Angellee & Schmid, 2007). Essential to the implementation of school change,
ownership of the reform is necessary. Teacher’s roles may now include the decision-
making with regards to instruction, assessment and procedures (Datnow & Castellano,
2001). Active participation in the reform design, teacher buy in and interactions in
52

networks and collaborative planning are all vital to a school reform’s success (Desimone,
2002).
Teachers as leaders play a crucial role in the implementation of the RTI model
(Kashima et al., 2009). In a study conducted by Angellee and Schmid, (2007), analysis of
the data yielded five categories to define a teacher leader: decision maker, an educational
role model, a positional designee, a supra-practitioner, and a visionary. Within the RTI
model, RTI coaches and special education teachers can be regarded as an educational role
model. Educational role models are viewed as having expertise in a certain area and
disseminate their knowledge to other teachers (Angellee & Schmid, 2007). In addition,
they support the principal in the planning and implementation of RTI and work and
consult with other teachers on appropriate instructional decisions. Both are very
knowledgeable in the RTI process and practices and can ensure fidelity through
monitoring teachers’ use of evidence-based instructional interventions, teacher
observations and providing feedback (Cummings et al., 2008; Kashima et al., 2009).
Resources

Resources have also been determined to be an essential component for school
reform (Datnow, 2005). Successful implementation of a school reform can be facilitated
by the district or school leader, through the provision of the many other resources that are
necessary for a reform including financial support, professional development, staffing,
time, curriculum and materials (Desimone, 2002). In one school that was studied by
Datnow (2005), removal of district financial support disrupted the reform
implementation. A solution to acquiring the necessary funds for the implementation of a
53

school reform was described by Fermanich and Kimball (2002). In their analysis,
examining the staffing needs and reallocating staff resources made it possible for the
studied schools to implement reform designs. Additionally, without adequate time for
preparation and planning, teachers are reluctant to buy-in to and implement school reform
(Desimone, 2002; Smith et al., 1997).
Ensuring the accessibility of resources is an important component to the
implementation of RTI including time, space and materials, documentation and financial
support (NJCLD, 2005). With the implementation of RTI, adjustments in the daily
schedules of teachers and administrators need to be made to incorporate meetings,
collaboration and professional development (NJCLD, 2005). Timelines also need to be
established to determine the time in certain tiers and time for instruction and intervention.
Ardoin, Witt, Connell, & Koenig (2005) examined the use of a RTI model and
determined that a lack of resources including time prevented the school from effective
implementation and evaluation of students using the RTI model. In addition to the
resource of time, space and materials are also essential to the successful implementation
of RTI. In order for students to receive intensive instruction in small group or tutoring
settings, appropriate space is needed. Additionally, materials and technology are required
for instruction, progress monitoring, evaluation and documentation. Although 15% of
Title I funding is allocated for the early intervention services of RTI, there is limited
information regarding the actual cost of RTI implementation versus other methods
service delivery. Further, increased costs will be incurred due to new resources, training
and the continued support of related services such as speech and language, occupational
54

therapy and psychological services (NJCLD, 2005).
In examining resources, it would be necessary to investigate the changing of roles
for teachers, specialists and administrators (Marston et. al., 2003). On the one hand,
while general education teachers have an understanding of how students learn and are
knowledgeable about content that they are teaching, their new role would include the
identification of barriers for some learners, implementing evidence-based academic and
behavioral interventions and continual communication with other staff members
(NJCLD, 2005). On the other hand, special education teachers are unique in that they are
familiar with this type of delivery service model. Their role as consultants would be key
in the implementation of RTI. Because of their background, special education teachers
would play a significant role in improving instruction for all students. They would
evaluate students, share their knowledge with others through modeling and feedback
regarding instructional strategies to use with students with disabilities, establish
appropriate goals and conduct ongoing assessments (Cummings et al., 2008).
Collaboration and co-teaching becomes a powerful means of utilizing staff while
meeting the needs of all students. Collaboration between two teachers would ensure that
research based lessons are being utilized, lessons are meeting the needs of all students in
the general education setting including the culturally and linguistically diverse students,
data collection and progress monitoring is occurring and students that require Tier 2 or
Tier 3 interventions are receiving more intensive, small group instruction (Murawski &
Hughes, 2009). Administrators and district personnel can assist teachers by reinforcing
expectations of collaborative teams and providing teachers with ongoing training
55

(NJCLD, 2005).
Conclusion
School-wide reform efforts such as CSR studies have provided information on the
importance of thinking through and sustaining a reform by considering the structures,
leadership, resources and training necessary for implementation (Datnow & Stringfield,
2000). These same factors, in addition to the systems and structures that make high
poverty high achieving schools successful, are prone to be influential in other reforms
such as RTI.
Research has shown that the implementation of RTI has decreased the number of
minority students identified for special education (Marston et al., 2003) and has
influenced the way support services are utilized (Ikeda & Gustafson, 2002). Although
several field studies have been conducted to explore the implementation of RTI,
continued research is needed with actual teachers in the classroom. The effectiveness and
sustainability of the RTI model at a high poverty high performing school deserves study
because hopefully, the results will allow schools to make an informed decision regarding
the implementation of such a program to influence student achievement.

56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
While there is agreement that equal opportunity for success and access to
education be provided to all students, a gap continues to exist in the achievement of poor
and minority students compared to their white counterparts. In spite of the achievement
trends of students attending high poverty schools, research has determined that
organizational structures and systems exist among these schools making high levels of
achievement possible (Levine et al., 2000; Levine & Ornstein, 1993; Reeves, 2003;
Sunderman, 2000). Changes in legislation such as NCLB and reform efforts that focus on
improving educational standards and student achievement such as Response to
Intervention (RTI), have aimed to minimize this gap in student performance and
achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to examine the role and sustainability of
structures and systems that promote high levels of academic achievement at a high
poverty, high achieving elementary school. School wide structures for this study, were
defined as the institutional mechanisms, policies and procedures implemented by federal,
state, or district mandates, while systems were identified as the use of resources such as
instructional time, personnel, funds, or facilities, at the school site that ensure that a
school’s mission, vision, and goals are met. Specifically, this study explored the systems
and structures of the RTI framework that are most effective in impacting student
achievement.
57

Research Methodology Overview
This chapter describes the research design, the chosen sample and population,
instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis process and ethical
considerations for this study. The aim of this study was to examine school wide structures
and systems at high performing, high poverty schools that contribute to students’
academic success. Further, an investigation of the implementation of the RTI framework
with struggling students was conducted. In particular, this study provided an in-depth
description of RTI implementation at one southern California elementary school. A single
elementary school in the Banfield Unified School District was studied to determine the
results for the following research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students
attending high poverty, high achieving schools?
a. What are the trends and patterns of performance among
students in special education?
2. What are the perceived school wide systems and structures that
contribute to high achievement in high poverty schools?
a. What are the systems and structures perceived to have the
most impact on the implementation of RTI?
3. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to
support higher levels of achievement for all students?

58

Research Design
The research design for this study was a descriptive case study of a high academic
performing urban elementary school involving the collection and analysis of qualitative
data. The various systems and structures that contributed to the implementation and
sustainability of RTI at one high poverty, high achieving elementary school were
examined. Often utilized in qualitative research, case studies allow for the exploration
and explanation of a phenomenon within a real life context (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007;
Merriam, 1998). It provides in depth descriptions of individuals, groups and interventions
with great attention to detail (Patton, 2002). Merriam (1998) posits that qualitative case
studies provide rich data for analysis.
Therefore, a qualitative case study was an appropriate design since this study
investigated the systems and structures that contributed to high achievement in high
poverty schools. In particular, the study aimed to examine the implementation and
sustainability of RTI at one school site. It allowed for a rich description of how RTI was
being implemented through the examination of the constructed model, use of the tiers and
progress monitoring. As Patton (2002) explains, qualitative designs are “naturalistic to
the extent that the research takes place in real world settings and the researcher does not
attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest” (p. 39). Naturalistic inquiry was
utilized for gathering data in which the implementation of RTI at the school site unfolded
naturally and without any predetermination. This study was strengthened by the
triangulation of data sources, which provided corroborating evidence and “cross-data
validity checks” (Patton, 2002, p. 248). The collection of comprehensive information
59

from interviews, observations and document analysis contributed to the in depth analysis
of the complexity between the structures and systems identified in this case study.
Sample and Population
Specific criteria were established to identify the one high performing, high
achieving elementary school for this case study. This section will summarize the
selection criteria, sampling procedures, participants, and overview of the district and
school.
Selection Criteria
The sample for this study focused on one elementary school located within one
southern California school district. Selection was made based on purposeful sampling so
that the information rich cases could provide “insights and in depth understanding”
(Patton, 2002, p. 230). The focus of the thematic dissertation group was to study the
systems and structures of high poverty high achieving schools. Therefore, the first step to
the identification of an appropriate school site for this study was to define high poverty
high performing. The established selection criteria for indentifying a high poverty high
achieving school for this case study included:
• API scores of 750 or higher and/or three consecutive years of positive API growth
• Similar school rank of 8 or higher
• School meeting their AYP target
• School wide Title I with at least 40% or more students qualifying for free and
reduced lunch
• Student enrollment of 500 or more
60

Sampling Procedures
To begin the purposeful sampling process, two resources were utilized to identify
a school in southern California that met the API threshold and “high poverty” criteria of
40% or more of students receiving free/reduced price lunch for this study. Information
from the California Department of Education (CDE) and Great Schools search based
website provided relevant data for this study which included API scores, similar school
rankings, school demographics, student ethnicities and free and reduced lunch
percentages. Not only did the school meet the established criteria, but it also consisted of
an elementary school site that has implemented the RTI model for 7 consecutive school
years. Through the selection of a school that implemented reforms and improved their
outcomes, the results can be used to determine what structures and resources may
contribute to effective implementation of these reforms.
The site principal was contacted by telephone and email to explain the purpose of
this research and the process that resulted in the selection of the school site as well as
gain approval and permission to conduct this study at their site.
Participants

This study involved the site administrator, school psychologist, speech therapist,
general education teachers, resource specialist, learning center teacher and the librarian at
the school site. Participation was voluntary and only staff that was willing to be
interviewed were part of the study. The school staff had varying years of experience at
the school site (Table 3.1). A total of 13 individuals participated in this study.

61

Table 3.1: Participants in Study

Position Held
Number of Years
in Position at Costa
Total Number of
Years in Education
Teacher A Second Grade D.I. 6 9
Teacher B Second Grade 8 8
Teacher C First Grade 8 8
Teacher D Fourth Grade 20 20
Teacher E Kindergarten 3 13
Teacher F RSP 3 15
Principal Principal 5 12
Learning Center Learning Center 2 2
Learning Center
(2004-2008)
Learning Center 7 10
Speech Therapist Speech Therapist 1 9
School Psychologist School Psychologist 2 22
Literacy Coach Literacy Coach 1

21

Librarian Librarian 13 13

Overview of the District and School

The school site selected for this study was Costa Elementary School. It is one of the
elementary schools in the Banfield Unified School District (BUSD). BUSD is located in
Riverside County and serves 4,710 students. There are 4 elementary schools, 1
intermediate school, 1 middle school and 1 comprehensive high school. Student ethnicity
at BUSD (Figure 3.1) primarily include 10% African American, 6% American Indian,
62

7% Asian, 60% Hispanic, and 17% White (California Department of Education [CDE],
2010).

Figure 3.1: BUSD Student Ethnicity
Costa Elementary School, located in a primarily Hispanic, low socioeconomic
neighborhood in Banfield, is one of 4 elementary schools in BUSD. The school’s student
population consists of approximately 625 students in grades kindergarten through fourth.
The student ethnicity (Figure 3.2) consists primarily of 3% Asian, 71% Hispanic, 9%
African American, 12% White, and 5% American Indian (CDE, 2010).

Figure 3.2: Costa Student Ethnicity
63

Although all ethnicities are represented, the majority of students both at the district
and school are Hispanic. A large number of BUSD and Costa Elementary students
qualify for free and reduced lunch, demonstrating low socioeconomic status. Table 3.2
describes the student demographics of BUSD and Costa Elementary School.
Table 3.2: Student Demographics
Source: California Department of Education
Costa Elementary BUSD

Number of Students

625 4,710
African American

9% 10%
American Indian

5% 6%
Asian

3% 7%
Hispanic

71% 59%
White

12% 17%
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
86% 84%
English Learners

41% 26%
Students with
Disabilities
5% 10%

BUSD as a whole is in Program Improvement Year Four. Currently, the overall
API is 701, a thirteen-point growth from the previous year. Costa Elementary School has
a current API of 856 with a nine-point growth from the previous year. 2010 API data
reveal that Costa met AYP for all subgroups in the 2009-2010 school year and earned a
similar school ranking of 10. Table 3.3 provides the API scores of Costa Elementary and
BUSD from 2003-2010.
64

Table 3.3: API Scores of Costa Elementary and BUSD from 2003-2010
Source: California Department of Education

2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Costa 651 733 761 786 767 847 856
BUSD 616 633 640 654 672 702 701

Theoretical Framework

A conceptual framework (Figure 3.3) was developed by the thematic dissertation
group to guide the examination of the systems and structures that exist to improve student
achievement at high performing, high poverty schools. It provides a foundation for the
study, assisting in the generation of the research questions, data collection, data analysis
and interpretation of the findings (Merriam, 2009). The conceptual framework developed
for this study was adapted from the Logic Model by McDavid and Hawthorn (2006). It is
a widely used model to determine the effectiveness of a program. Included in The Logic
Model are 6 components: 1) needs 2) objective 3) input 4) activities 5) output 6) actual
outcomes.
65

Figure 3.3: Conceptual Framework
For this case study, the need is to close the achievement gap between high poverty
and low poverty schools. In examining the need for this study, the objective is to have a
high performing high poverty school. The input includes the school wide structures of
the school, which consists of policies, such as NCLB and IDEA as well as structures
within the school, such as the type of RTI model or number of tiers included within the
model. The systems within the study are the factors that influence the implementation of
RTI. The outputs of this study were the fidelity and sustainability of the RTI model.
Finally, the actual goal as evidenced in this model is to assure that the outcomes have met
the objective. In this study, outcome is high student achievement as revealed by the
school API, making it a high performing school.

66

Data Collection

The data collection process consisted of semi-structured interviews, observations
and document analysis. Interviews contributed as the primary source of data. Each
participant was provided an explanation of the interview process and assurance of
confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained prior to each interview. Observations
were conducted to substantiate data from the interviews. Documents provided further
data related to the planning and implementation of the RTI model at Costa Elementary
School. Data was collected from September 2010 to November 2010. Table 3.4
demonstrates the connection between the instruments, data collection, and the research
questions in a simple matrix.
Table 3.4: Instrumentation and Research Questions

Research Questions
Semi-
Structured
Interviews
Observations Artifact
Analysis
1. What are the trends and patterns of
performance among students?
x x
1a. What are the trends and patterns of
performance among students in special
education?
x x
2. What are the perceived school-wide
systems and structures that
contribute to high achievement in
high poverty schools?
x x x
2a. What are the systems and structures
perceived to have the most impact on the
implementation of RTI?
x x x
3. How are organizational systems
implemented and sustained to
support higher levels of achievement
for all students?
x x x
67

Semi-Structured Interviews
Patton (2002) posits that when beginning the process of interviewing an
individual, an assumption is made that they are knowledgeable and that the information
they provide is meaningful. He further states that the purpose of an interview is to allow
the researcher a better understanding of their perspective. For this study, interviews were
conducted with the principal, school psychologist, speech therapist, resource specialist,
teachers and librarian. Each interview was conducted at the school site to examine the
contextual nature of the work of each participant with various roles on the school
campus. Essential to the interview was the establishment of rapport, solicitation of
thoughtful questions and listening intently (Merriam, 1998). Interviews lasted
approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. They were tape recorded and notes were taken
simultaneously. Upon completion of the interviews, they were transcribed verbatim. The
dissertation group developed and adapted interview protocols for the administrator
(Appendix A), teachers (Appendix B) and classified staff (Appendix C). Preparation of
these interview guides ensured that the topics or subject of interest were explored within
the same fashion for each individual (Patton, 2002). Through the use of the interview
protocols, semi structured interviews consisting of a combination of structured and
unstructured questions (Merriam, 1998) were conducted to elicit specific information.
Observations
Observational data provide information about the setting, activities, and people.
Patton (2002) suggests several advantages to observations including: 1) the ability to gain
a better understanding of the context of the interactions of individuals, 2) the experience
68

to be open and discover the environment and rely less on conceptualizations, 3) the
opportunity to see things that may typically be overlooked and 4) the ability to observe
things others do not always want to discuss in an interview.
Arrangements were made with the principal to conduct observations over a three-
day period. Patton (2002) asserts that when conducting observations, attention should be
made on the setting, social environment, activities and interactions. Field notes were as
detailed as possible including vivid descriptions, direct quotations and this researcher’s
comments. Observations were conducted in nine classrooms, two grade level meetings
and of the site in general. The thematic dissertation group developed observation
protocols for the classroom (Appendix D), meetings/professional development (Appendix
E) and the general site (Appendix F).
Document Analysis

Document analysis was conducted to gather information on the school’s
background and profile. They provide a rich source of information that cannot always be
observed, a historical perspective and allow for a “behind-the-scenes” look at program
processes (Patton, 2002). Documents can include both public and private records. Public
documents such as the School Site Plan and School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
provided information on class size, discipline and attendance records, student population,
and special programs. Documents related to student achievement including API, APY,
California Subject Tests (CST) and district benchmark tests were analyzed. Additionally,
minutes and agendas from school/grade level meetings, the school mission and vision

69

statement, professional development and special education referral process and statistics
were reviewed.
Specific to this study, documents of the school’s RTI implementation was
collected. RTI forms, flow charts, the yearly timeline, RTI level of tiers chart, progress
monitoring reports, an informational chart of benchmark tests for each grade level,
assessment information including charts and graphs, universal screening charts, RTI
intervention decision handout, RTI teacher informational fliers, parent RTI informational
fliers and notes, RTI curriculum flier summaries, and RTI Power Point presentations
were gathered, analyzed, and coded. All collected documents were photocopied
whenever possible. The data collection protocol located in Appendix G provides the
relationship between the documents and research questions.
Data Analysis

The three sources of qualitative data – interviews, observations and document
analysis were transformed into findings and guided by the research questions and data
collected (Patton, 2002). Data was analyzed using Creswell’s (2003) six step model: 1)
organize and prepare data, 2) read data thoroughly to get a general sense, 3) chunk or
code the data, 4) design a detailed description of the data, 5) convey the findings, and 6)
interpret and assign meaning to the data (see Figure 3.4).
70

Figure 3.4: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
To begin the data analysis, the 13 interviews were fully transcribed and the
handwritten field notes were typed and organized. In order to gain a holistic sense of the
collected data, the transcribed data, typed observations and organized documents were
read and scanned. Coding emerged from more macro concepts to micro levels. Field
notes and transcriptions were read and re-read making notes in the margins and color
coding different concepts according to the research questions for this study. Through the
exploration of the ideas and meaning of the data, significant concepts were identified. All
collected data from the study were analyzed and coded to examine themes in the data
(Merriam, 1998). Coding and refining of themes occurred over 2 weeks. Chapter Four
will discuss the findings from the data analysis in narrative form using the research
questions to organize the data.
Ethical Considerations
To ensure that the data collection for this study was obtained in an ethical manner,
the rules and regulations established by the University of Southern California’s
71

Institutional Review Board (IRB) were followed. The essential research principles of
respect for persons, beneficence and justice as described in The Belmont Report further
provided ethical guidance for this research study (The National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1798). First,
respect for persons required that individuals participating in a research study participate
voluntarily and are allowed to make informed decisions. Second, beneficence ensured
that the participant was not harmed and that the research posed maximum benefit with
minimal risk. Finally, justice demanded that every individual received fair, equitable
treatment.
All participants were presented with a consent form (Appendix H) that provided a
description of the research procedure, their purposes, risks and anticipated benefits,
alternative procedures, and a statement offering the subject the opportunity to ask
questions and to withdraw at any time from the research. Participants were also provided
assurance of the confidentiality of their statements and the benefits that could result from
this study. The school and all participants were given pseudonyms to enhance anonymity.
72

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Chapter Four presents the findings from this case study, which are, the structures
and systems that encourage high levels of academic performance for all students at a high
poverty, high achieving elementary school. In particular, this study focused on the
examination of RTI as an early intervention strategy and an alternative to special
education placement. To better understand the systems and structures that exist in a high
poverty, high performing school, one elementary school located within one southern
California school district was investigated.
Costa Elementary School is one of four elementary schools in the Banfield
Unified School District (BUSD) located in Riverside County. Approximately 625
students attend Costa Elementary School in kindergarten through the fourth grade.
Majority of students are Hispanic (71%) with 41% of students that are identified as
English Language Learners (ELL). Moreover, 86% of the students at Costa Elementary
School qualify for free or reduced lunch, demonstrating low socioeconomic status.
Furthermore, the school achieved an API of 856, therefore meeting the criteria of this
study as a high poverty, high performing school. It is a Title I school that is now out of
Program Improvement after being a year 4 school and meeting its AYP goals.
The findings in this chapter are based on three sources of qualitative data:
interviews, observations, and document analysis. Thirteen interviews were completed
with the school administrator, teachers, and staff. In addition, nine classroom
observations and two grade-level staff meetings were conducted. Interviews and
observations were triangulated with the review and analysis of district and school
73

documents. This chapter is organized based on the qualitative data that addressed the
research questions. The findings of the three research questions are followed by a
descriptive analysis and discussion of the data’s significance.
Research Questions
The remainder of this chapter presents the findings related to the following
research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students attending high
poverty, high achieving schools?
a. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students in
special education?
2. What are the perceived school wide systems and structures that contribute to
high achievement in high poverty schools?
b. What are the systems and structures perceived to have the most impact
on the implementation of RTI?
3. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support higher
levels of achievement for all students?
Data Findings
Trends and Patterns at Costa Elementary School
In 1999, Costa Elementary School had an API score of 463 with a school ranking
of 2. Although the school’s API score increased to 651 in 2003-2004, it was designated
as a school in Program Improvement status for not meeting AYP for all significant
subgroups. Ten years and three principals later the API score is 856 with a similar school
74

ranking of 10, overall school ranking of 8 and no longer in Program Improvement. To
gain a better understanding of what is working at a high-performing school, research
question one aimed to investigate the trends and patterns of the student population and
performance at Costa Elementary School, specifically students with disabilities. They
will be discussed in the following section.
Trends and Patterns of the Student Population
According to research, African American and Hispanic children living in urban
areas are typically the groups overrepresented in high poverty schools (Berliner, 2006).
As seen in Table 4.1, the main Ethnic group at Costa Elementary School is Hispanic.
Table 4.1: Student Enrollment by Ethnicity between 2003-2010

Source: California Department of Education

2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009

2009-
2010
School
wide
712 602 636 646 620 594
625

American
Indian 34 (4.8) 27 (4.5) 28 (4.4) 25 (3.9) 23 (3.7) 19 (3.2)

18 (3)

Asian 11 (1.5) 9 (1.5) 12 (1.9) 17 (2.6) 13 (2.1) 12 (2)
12 (2)

Pacific
Islander 0 (0) 1(0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)

1 (0)

Filipino 7(1) 1 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3)
3 (0)

Hispanic
461
(64.7)
391
(65)
437
(68.7)
440
(68.1)
441
(71.1)
418
(70.4)
452
(72)

African
American 35 (4.9) 42 (7) 39 (6.1) 46 (7.1) 47 (7.6) 58 (9.8)

56 (10)
White
129
(18.1)
91
(15.1)
79
(12.4)
88
(13.6)
74
(11.9)
66
(11.1)

74
(12)
Multiple 35 (4.9) 37 (6.1) 39 (6) 28 (4.3) 19 (3.1) 18 (3)

9 (1)
75

Over the last six years, there has been a very slight change in the ethnicity of students at
Costa Elementary School. Since 2003, there has been an increase in the percentage of
Hispanic students attending Costa from 64.7% to 72%. During the same period, the
enrollment of other ethnicities has decreased. Although Costa has students represented
from all ethnicities, the percentage is quite low in comparison to the majority. In addition
to the high minority population, 41% of the students at Costa speak non-English
languages, with Spanish English Language Learners heavily represented.
According to the National Center for Children in Poverty (2008), Hispanic and
Black children are disproportionately poor. Serving as an indicator of poverty is the
percentage of students that qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch. At 86%, Costa
Elementary School is a high poverty school, well above the qualifying requirement of
School wide Title I eligibility.
Since 2004, the percentage of students that have received Free and Reduced
Lunch has consistently been over 70%. Costa is well above the average in comparison to
the county and state average. From 2003-2010, Free and Reduced Lunch was 49.2-54.3%
in the county, with a similar state average of 49-53.7% (California Department of
Education, 2010).
According to the California Department of Education (CDE), December 2010
report, BUSD currently has 145 K-4
th
grade students in special education. The CDE
report did not disaggregate data for disability categories by school site. However, of the
38 students in special education at Costa, the numbers were similar to the district with the
majority of the students (73%) qualifying for special education under speech/language
76

impairment. Additionally, the percentage of students by ethnicity in special education
mirrors the student population at Costa.
While BUSD offers a full spectrum of special education services ranging from a
self contained Special Day Class to the Resource Specialist Program (RSP) to Designated
Instructional Service (DIS), Costa currently provides special education services through
RSP and DIS support. As seen in Figure 4.1 the number of students that received RSP has
steadily decreased from 2004-2010.

Figure 4.1: RSP
Although a number of students who are struggling to meet grade level state
standards do not qualify for special education, they receive additional support using the
RTI framework. Costa Elementary School utilizes the learning center as part of their
tiered intervention model. It was first introduced in 2004 to address the needs of
struggling students. The number of students in the learning center is revealed in Figure
4.2.
77

Figure 4.2: RTI
It is evident that there was a gradual increase of students participating in the
learning center from 2004-2009. RTI was implemented through the slow introduction of
intensive interventions to different grade levels. In 2004 only first grade students received
interventions, followed by K-1
st
grades in 2005-2006. In 2006-2007, K, 1
st
, 2
nd
and 4
th

grades received interventions and finally in 2007-2008, RTI was fully implemented at
Costa. Due to a decrease in funding, Costa lost their bilingual aide, leaving one
credentialed teacher in the learning center. Hence the number of students in the learning
center decreased in 2009-2010 because students in the dual immersion program no longer
received interventions in the learning center.
Between 2004-2007 there was a slight increase in the percentage of students
identified with disabilities. As shown in Figure 4.3, since 2007, there has been a
consistent decrease in the percentage of students with disabilities.
78

Figure 4.3: Percent of Students with Disabilities
Source: California Department of Education
While the decrease in the number of students receiving special education services may
be due to the success of the RTI framework, it is also important to note that the K-2 SDC
class at Costa was moved to another school in 2007-2008, also attributing to the initial
decrease in the percentage of students with disabilities from 13-10%.
The following section will examine the patterns of student performance for the
students at Costa Elementary School and specifically for the students with disabilities.
Trends and Patterns of Student Achievement
Student achievement as evidenced by Academic Performance Index (API) scores
has steadily increased since 2003 as seen in Figure 4.4.
79

Figure 4.4: Costa Elementary School API Scores 2003-2010
Source: California Department of Education

In 2007-2008, Costa’s API score decreased by 19 points. The perception of the
principal and staff was that scores were impacted because of a change in teaching staff
during the school year in three different classrooms – two 3
rd
grade classes and one 2
nd

grade dual immersion class. Yet, time and again, the teachers articulated the tremendous
increase and growth in student achievement. “Our trends for this school are that we are
just achieving higher and higher every single year. We just keep getting better and better
and better. As far as API and our scores, that’s definitely the trend,” Teacher B shared.
Some attributed this growth to the change in the mindset of the teachers. In other words,
“Teachers are the change agents,” Teacher D said. Sharing a similar belief, Teacher A
asserted,
Before, there were a lot of teachers that would say, that’s all that we can do.
That’s the population that we have. We can’t do miracles. But now, we have
established they can do it. We’re gonna meet this goal. We can improve. So the
mindset has been altered and every time we say we’re going to improve, we have.
It’s a matter of us, making them reach their potential.

80

At Costa Elementary School, there has been growth in the trends of performance
school-wide in language arts across all sub-groups as determined by the CST since the
2003-2004 school year, except for the 2007-2008 school year at which time school wide,
they did not meet their API target school wide. Figure 4.5 shows longitudinal data for
AYP for each significant subgroup at Costa from 2003-2010 in language arts.

Figure 4.5: ELA Percent Proficient
Source: Riverside County Office of Education

Although there is a clear upward trend in student achievement, not all subgroups
at Costa were successful in meeting the AYP criteria for several years. However, current
data indicates an increase in API especially with all subgroups meeting their AYP.
According to the CST scores for Mathematics, since 2003, each subgroup’s
proficiency percentage has steadily increased. Further, each subgroup has met their AYP
target every year as seen in Figure 4.6.

81

Figure 4.6: Math Percent Proficient
Source: Riverside County Office of Education

In looking at CST data, the students with disabilities percent proficiency rates
were among the school’s other subgroups. However, there has been slight fluctuation in
their rates as evident in their increase and decrease over the years. Last year, the students
with disabilities scored below the AMO target and demonstrated a significant decrease in
both ELA and math. In investigating this trend, the principal explained,
Our numbers last year with students with special needs, their API actually went
down last year. But one of the things that you have to understand when you’re
dealing with special needs is that you have a small subgroup that one or two
students can really skew your data. Our numbers actually went down some but
overall the students did very well. If I were to talk about each student, I would be
able to say we had a very good year. We had students with special needs score in
the proficient range and kids for the most part were making growth.

Because CST data does not always portray student progress, especially those with
disabilities, it is beneficial to use other data to assess trends in student performance. Costa
has worked collaboratively in their effort to target both struggling students and students
with disabilities through RTI. They receive intensive instruction in the learning center
and have demonstrated gains. For example, in reviewing 3
rd
grade and 4
th
grade CST
82

scores, data revealed that twenty-four fourth grade students that received intensive
instruction in the learning center for two years made an average scaled score gain of 41
points on the CST in 2010. Data also revealed the growth of learning center students
between quadrants on the CST as seen in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Learning Center Data 2009-2010

Total No Gain 1 Level Gain 2 Level Gain
Students 24 6 14 4
Percentage 100% 25% 60% 15%

In characterizing the progress and success of a school, it is beneficial to not only
determine effects related to student performance but also the school environment
(Kutash, Nico, Gorin, Rahmatullah & Tallant, 2010). While student performance
measures included API scores, AYP percent proficiency and learning center data, school
environment measures include elements such as attendance, suspensions and expulsions.
Because the school submits their attendance data to the district office, which is then
archived, attendance data was not readily accessible. However, shown in Table 4.3 are
Costa’s suspensions and expulsions from 2003-2010.
Table 4.3: Costa’s Suspensions and Expulsions from 2003-2010

2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
Suspensions
90
(.13)
31
(.05)
25
(.04)
10
(.02)
22
(.04)
44
(.07)
25
(.04)
Expulsions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The number of students suspended at Costa has fluctuated. However, overall they have
been kept to a minimum with it’s high of 0.13% in 2003-2004. Additionally, no
expulsions were reported in the last 8 years. According to the principal, Costa has “high
83

expectations for classroom management.” Behaviors are managed utilizing a card system:
yellow is a warning, red indicates a phone call home and blue constitutes a visit to the
principal. He further expressed, “When teachers are sending me kids, I know it’s serious.
I don’t get too many kids because our teachers do a really good job of handling their
classroom management.”
Analysis
An assumption is made that minority students living in high poverty areas
demonstrate poor educational outcomes. Contrary to Coleman’s findings that the social
class of the student body affects student achievement, the data on the trends and patterns
from Costa Elementary School yields a different story. The student population at Costa
Elementary School has demonstrated consistency over the years. Of the 625 students, the
majority is Hispanic (72%) with 86% receiving free and reduced lunch. English
Language Learners represent 41% of the student population and the percentage of
students with disabilities has decreased to 5%. Although the district shares similar
demographics with Costa, they are the only elementary school demonstrating continued
growth, academic success and an API over 800.
In examining the achievement data of students with disabilities, proficiency rates
have fluctuated in both English language arts and math. Though standardized tests may
provide one indication of a student’s achievement and progress, they do not tell the whole
story. According to the principal, because of the small subgroup of students with
disabilities, one or two students can skew the data, however overall they continue to
make growth. While the goal of BUSD as stated on their website is to “continue to close
84

the achievement gap for all subgroups especially special education and English language
learners,” trends in achievement allow them to target areas of subgroups and subject
matter that require their attention as well as a rationale for interventions (Congress of the
United States Congressional Budget Office, 197). The trends and patterns of this study
reveal an increase in the number of students receiving support in the learning center as an
intervention to intervene early for students who have been identified as struggling.
Although the data reveals that Costa demonstrates continued academic growth,
they do not rest on their laurels. The principal explained,
If you were just looking at the data, that’s what the data would say…I always
think we’re struggling because I’m always nervous. Are we doing enough? Are
we hitting everything that we need to? Is every kid being seen? And I think that’s
part of our success is that we’re always a little uneasy about where we’re at.
There’s always a push and my teachers know the expectations are extremely high.
I think that’s the biggest thing is that nobody ever feels that we’ve made it.

Summary

Analysis of the trends and patterns at Costa Elementary School included the
examination of student population, student performance and school environment. With
behaviors effectively managed in the classroom, suspensions and expulsions were kept to
a minimum. Key indicators of student academic success at Costa are CST scores and the
school’s API, which is currently at 856.
School Wide Structures and Systems
Research question two intended to examine the perceived school wide systems
and structures that contribute to high achievement in high poverty schools, specifically
the impact of RTI. While structures were defined as instructional mechanisms, policies
and procedures put in place by federal state or district policy and legislation or widely
85

accepted as the official structure of schools, systems were defined as coordinated and
coherent use of resources at the school site to ensure that the school vision, mission, and
goals are met.
Costa has focused on data-driven decision making as a vital component to its
academic success. Through the use of data, they are able to gain a better understanding of
student needs, construct interventions to meet those needs and assess the effectiveness of
those interventions. In reviewing a report completed for dissemination to other schools in
the district, Costa emphasizes a data-driven approach because they “believe that various
student groups face different challenges and merit specific attention.” Identified
structures to ensure successful achievement, especially in a high poverty school included:
the identification of students, interventions and progress monitoring (Figure 4.7). At
Costa, professional development, leadership and resources were systems that work within
the structures to support high levels of achievement.

Figure 4.7: Relationship Between the School-wide Structures at Costa Elementary School
Note: Adapted from National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010).
Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National
Center on Response to Intervention.
86

Specific to this study, Response to Intervention (RTI) was examined to discover
the influence of the RTI framework implemented at Costa Elementary School. RTI is a
framework for improving student achievement through the integration of ongoing
assessment to a multi-level intervention. Through the use of data, schools identify
students that are at-risk, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions
and adapt the intensity of the interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness
(National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010). In alignment with federal mandates
such as NCLB and IDEA, Costa embarked on the RTI framework to implement an
effective reform adapted to fit their culture and accomplish their goals of affording all
students the opportunity to learn.
Identification of students. To assure that all students learn, receive high quality
education and reach their fullest potential, each teacher takes the time to examine student
data to ensure understanding of their students’ needs. The principal asserted,
We make sure that everybody is identified in the class. Whether it has to do with
special education, whether it has to do with ELL, so that all the teachers know
who their kids are, know what their needs are…Data gives you a better profile
about the student and helps you identify strengths and weaknesses, and teachers
can go from there.

Teachers received a class-grouping card with information regarding each of their
students. “I remember when we were at our meetings before kids came back, the 3
rd

grade teachers grabbed the 2
nd
grade data because that was their kids coming in for the
year,” Teacher F shared. Class-grouping cards are used not only to assist teachers in
better understanding their students, but also to target areas of instruction that are needed
for their particular class and their particular group.
87

The school year begins with teachers testing all students to determine their
academic levels. Often, the assessment given is a district wide grade level assessment to
ensure the consistency among all schools. In reviewing the Initial Kindergarten
assessment, teachers determine students’ knowledge in areas such as recognition of upper
and lower case letters, numbers and their ability to write their names. “It’s a good tool to
see where they’re at and helps us to gear instruction according to their levels,” Teacher E
explained. Based on the results of initial assessments, students’ needs are met through the
formation of homogeneous groups according to ability level.
Costa Elementary School distinguishes between two methods of determining how
students qualify for interventions utilizing RTI as seen in Figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8: Screening Model

All students in grades K-2 were identified through universal screening
assessments conducted at the beginning of the school year. Regardless of their current
levels, all students were assessed to determine if certain skills were missing. Kindergarten
students were assessed utilizing the Bracken, which is a norm-referenced test that gauged
88

early pre-school skills. The evaluation has eleven subtests, however Costa utilized the
first six to evaluate the students’ awareness of colors, letters, numbers, sizes,
comparisons, and shapes. Prior to this year, the first and second grade students were
assessed using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), which
evaluates fluency. However, because the school adopted a new English language arts
curriculum this year, the first and second grade students were assessed using the core
curriculum, Intensive Reading Kit Assessment Guide. Kindergarten, first and second
grade students that scored below the cut point received intervention in the learning center.
Learning center groups for third and fourth grade were determined through CST
data. Teacher D explained, “First of all the FBBs and BBs go. Automatic, no questions
asked.” Although the students that scored Far Below Basic and Below Basic on the CST
were automatically placed into intervention, collaboration between the teachers and the
learning center teacher determined the needs of the students that scored Basic. Teacher D
further shared,
Then as a teacher, when for the first couple of weeks you can see in your
classroom and look at the Basic kids who are in the last three or four sections of
that quadrant and then now you can say, this [student] would benefit, this
[student] would benefit, this [student] would benefit, boom, now go. So then you
have a chance to say who you want to go. The two bottom sections are
mandatory.

Assessments and identification of students participating in the learning center were
conducted very early in the school year. The goal was to have the learning center
populated by the third week of school.
Intervention. Costa Elementary School has made a commitment to provide a
range of instructional strategies and interventions for students who struggle - from
89

differentiated instruction to a specialized intervention either afterschool or during school
in the learning center. The interventions allow all students opportunities to learn
standards and strands that pose the most challenge. “We do a really good job at filling in
gaps and holes in kids’ learning which I think helps them moving forward,” Teacher B
articulated.
Afterschool intervention is three to four days a week and non-negotiable for
students that are below basic or far below basic. It is grade level specific and based on the
needs of the students. Teacher B asserted, “We’ll work on phonics, we’re on Success
Maker, we’re able to do a focus area for the kids. You can target whatever strand they’re
struggling with…Our specific thing in 2
nd
grade is comprehension, fluency and phonics.”
While there are some students that receive afterschool intervention to further assist them
on content that was provided during the school day, all students in the Dual Immersion
program receive afterschool intervention. Teacher A explained,
I’ve talked to every single parent and told them the importance of them [their child]
being here because it’s all test prep in English, to try and get them ready. And what
we see in the day, they’ll get to see it again in English. So if they didn’t make the
connection, hopefully with the afterschool program, they’ll actually make the
connection in English.

In addition to the afterschool program, Costa Elementary School provides
intervention during the day through a three-tiered approach using the RTI framework as
seen in Figure 4.9. This approach provides three distinct levels of support. The tiers of
intervention are dependent upon the individual needs of each of the student. Within each
tier, more than one intervention can be present.
90

Figure 4.9: Three-tiered Approach at Costa Elementary School

Differentiated instruction was referred to as “workshops” and was the first line of
defense for interventions. The general education core curriculum with the support of
workshops formed Tier 1 of Costa’s RTI framework. The purpose of Tier 1 intervention
was for students to receive differentiated instruction at their ability level and to target
those students that were performing low in certain areas. It was designed to pre-teach or
re-teach the core curriculum for those students that were struggling in order to support
their learning in the classroom lesson. In Teacher B’s classroom, it was observed that
while most of the students worked independently on a writing assignment, 3 students
worked on the same assignment with a classroom aide at another table. The aide provided
assistance to the group focusing on spelling, punctuation and sentence formation.
Usually following whole group instruction, small groups consisting of about 4-5
students work with the teacher for about 15 minutes per day. The principal remarked,
“They want to keep their kids in their classroom. They feel, because those are their kids
91

and they have a better sense of where they’re at and what they’re doing. So they try to
keep everything on the Tier 1.” During an observation in Teacher A’s classroom, after
direct instruction, three students were called to the table to work with the teacher. The
lesson was re-explained followed by the use of white boards and worksheets to further re-
teach the lesson. The students appeared engaged in the lesson as they interacted with each
other and the teacher.

Tier 2 intervention was provided to students who continued to have difficulty
despite Tier 1 intervention as well as those students that were identified through universal
screening at the beginning of the school year. Tier 2 intervention involved a group of 20-
30 students outside of the general education classroom with instruction provided by a
credentialed teacher.
The pullout schedule was developed with the assurance that students going to the
learning center did not miss out on core instruction or workshop in the classroom. For
example, the hour of intervention that the first grade students received was divided into
two sessions to ensure that they did not miss out on core instruction in the classroom.
Students participated in the learning center every day but the amount of time varied by
grade level as follows:
Grade Level Time Spent
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Approximately 25 minutes a day
Approximately 1 hour
Approximately 1 hour 15 minutes a day
Approximately 45 minutes a day
Approximately 1 hour 15 minutes

92

During Tier 2 intervention, students were provided additional support and
opportunities to practice. As observed during a kindergarten lesson in the learning center,
they sang a song to review the letter sounds. Then a worksheet was completed as a whole
group that many students commented having seen in class earlier in the day. The last
activity included practice with high frequency words. The students read the word; created
a sentence with the word then the teacher wrote the sentence on the board for the students
to read aloud. The learning center teacher shared,
I think it’s the re-teach that is what is really helping the kids. They hear it once in
their classroom and then I expand on it or I can even pre-teach a little bit and then
they’ll hear it again in their classroom.

While, support in the core curriculum is provided for students K-2 using the Intensive
Reading Kit, the SRA Reach program is used for third and fourth graders.
For students that required even more intensive instruction Tier 3 intervention was
provided. Just as with Tier 2, instruction involved a pullout model outside of the general
education classroom by a credentialed teacher. Students who continued to struggle with
Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions were provided additional time or a double block by
attending another grade level group. For example, the learning center teacher explained,
I have some kids who are in 2
nd
grade that actually come into the first grade group
or are coming to an additional group because they need that extra help because
some of them don’t know their letters yet and so they need to be here for the first
grade group. Some of them will come for first and second grade group and some
of them will just come for second.

By focusing on the specific needs of the students and implementing instructional
strategies and interventions, students are afforded the opportunity to learn.
93

Progress Monitoring. All of the teachers indicated that all students were
continually monitored through the use of formative and summative assessments. An
example of the various 1
st
grade required assessments for the year are shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Example of Required Assessments
Daily Weekly
Bi or Tri
Weekly Curriculum Instruction For Students
X Fluency
X ELD (Some Classes Rotate)
X Math Fast Facts
X Update Math Chart in Hall (Fast Facts)
X Math Chapter Tests
X Chapter & Unit/Chapter & Cumulative
(Grade Level Decision as to Unit or Cumulative
X English Language Arts Weekly Assessments
X Assessments Chapters / Units/Writing/Fluency
Assessments Book 1 & 2
X Benchmark (District Mandated 2010/2011)
Benchmark does not include the writing or fluency.
X 6 + 1 Writing Samples Posted in Administration Hall
Current Trait to be decided as a grade level decision.
X Update AR Chart in Hall
X DRA Level Readers (Recommended for At Risk Students)
X Student Treasures - Deadline is April 15, 2010

Summative assessment data included: California Standards Test (CST), district
benchmarks, lesson assessments and unit assessments. Formative assessments that inform
teaching on an ongoing basis include reading assessments, Accelerated Reader (AR),
teacher observations such as “thumbs up or thumbs down,” student work including
notebooks, teacher logs and report cards. In every classroom observed, various types of
assessment data in the form of sticker charts or graphs were clearly displayed as to
communicate expectations and progress of each student on AR, math facts and fluency.

94

Teacher B explained,
He [principal] really likes to see our data being shown. Like fluency or what kids
are doing with math facts. He likes to see AR up to see that they’re testing. He
really looks at those aspects to see where our kids are and to see if they’re
meeting standards.

SMART goals and collaboration between teachers are essential to monitoring the
progress of all students. According to the school Site Action Plan, one of the goals of the
school is to implement data protocols with SMART goals. “At least once a month at our
grade level [meeting], we have grade level data analysis,” Teacher A shared. Data team
meetings were established for teachers to gather, compare and analyze assessment data to
determine if students were meeting benchmarks. A Data Analysis Worksheet was
completed by the teachers and discussed with the group. The worksheet addressed target
areas based on the needs of the grade level, assessment results and strengths and
weaknesses as indicated by the data. It guides instruction and the focus becomes mastery
on skills.
Progress monitoring is a unique characteristic to the RTI framework because the
data provides information regarding student progress; areas that require continued focus
and the benefits of the intensive instruction (Johnson et al., 2006). Teacher
communication and collaboration was important in this process, especially in determining
the increased need for intervention. Input from the general education teacher was just as
crucial as input from the learning center teacher. Collaboration included reviewing work
samples and conversations regarding student progress on grade level tests and progress in
the classroom. On the one hand, Teacher B explained,
95

When kids are showing improvement or getting proficient and you know, able to
keep up with the rest of the class, they are exited. And it’s the teacher and the
learning center teacher that will discuss it or exit that child.

On the other hand, if a student demonstrates insufficient growth, progress monitoring
would verify the necessity of increased intervention. The learning teacher shared,
I will try to talk to the teachers and see how they’re doing in the classroom and if
not maybe they have to go to a different, maybe switch. If they’re a second grader
and the second grade class isn’t helping then maybe they need to switch down to
the first grade. I just try to make an individualized plan in my mind.

Implication for Special Education
Teachers at Costa Elementary School are mandated to send students at risk to the
learning center. They acknowledge the benefits of the learning center as well as its
impact on students referred to special education. “I think that the philosophy here is that
the RTI model, is trying to keep them away from special education as much as possible,
the least restrictive environment,” the school psychologist shared. Rather than wait 2-3
years until students at risk are identified as requiring intervention, the RTI framework
ensures that students receive the necessary support as early as kindergarten. When
students are nonresponsive to intervention, it may indicate that there is a learning
disability or other disability. The inappropriate identification of students who might
appear to have a learning disability might be reduced if the RTI framework is
implemented effectively (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010). Thus, RTI
assists in determining the students that genuinely need special education services. The
principal explained,
It [learning center] definitely gives us a lot more validity when we’re sending kids
because we can honestly say, we have tried everything…It’s the students that are
96

not making any gains, and that’s the definition of special education, those kids
that can learn, but learn in a much slower pace.

The learning center is available for students that require extra assistance. As they
progress and meet grade level standards, they eventually graduate from the program and
are no longer pulled out from their classroom for intensive instruction. The learning
center has been found to be effective in “filling the gaps” and has prevented students
from being inappropriately referred for special education. For the students that have had
intervention for a couple years and continue to make little progress, the principal said,
“We can feel confident that we’re identifying kids that we have tried everything.”
Influential School-wide Systems

The principal and teachers at Costa Elementary School indicated that many
factors attributed to the success of their school. Current research has identified a number
of components that contribute to the improvement of student performance. Specifically
professional development, leadership and resources emerged as systems that enhanced
student achievement as well as the implementation of RTI at Costa Elementary School
and will be discussed in the following section.
Professional Development. “Wow, do they professionally develop us!” Teacher C
expressed. “We had a specialist come in from out of state. Fantastic speaker,
motivational, and not only was she fantastic to listen to but she also had a wonderful bag
of tricks,” she continued. Professional development central to specific curriculum and
scientifically based classroom interventions is most beneficial and more likely to be
utilized by teachers (Gettinger & Stober, 2007; Smith et al., 1997). Teachers at Costa
Elementary School participate in a weeklong district professional development every
97

summer. The district offers trainings when new curriculum is adopted to ensure
knowledge of the curriculum, textbook, assessments and instructional strategies. Often
professional development focuses on the missing pieces or gaps that have been identified.
For example one year, writing was discovered as an area of need, therefore the teachers
received training on writing strategies such as Step Up to Writing and 6 Traits Writing.
Other than the initial in-service prior to Costa’s implementation of RTI, additional
professional development specific to RTI has not been provided. Rather, the focus of
professional development at Costa has been on the core curriculum. The principal
explained,
Well, our teachers having had it [learning center] for the last 7 years are well
versed with what the learning center does, what it can do and the success that it’s
had over the last several years. We’ve really focused our training on the fidelity to
the core and the core curriculum and it works hand in hand with the learning
center. And then we haven’t had to do a lot of training on the RTI model because
teachers have evolved with the model.

Although professional development does not specifically target RTI, teachers at
Costa Elementary School receive a tremendous amount of training, not only from the
district but also at the school site. From a school standpoint, teachers receive training
from the principal, English Language Learners (ELL) coach or literacy coach at least
once a month to ensure continual engagement and learning of all students. As disclosed
on their Site Action Plan, Costa views professional development as essential to raising
teachers’ level of teaching. Additionally, staff meetings are set aside for data training in
order to further understand students’ needs and target instructional decision-making.
Leadership. “We have good leadership,” the learning center teacher stated as one
of the strengths of the school. All of the teachers that were interviewed at Costa
98

Elementary School described the principal as being very involved and holding them
accountable for student achievement. “He is very supportive. He has high expectations of
the whole staff,” Teacher F shared. Teacher C described a strength of the school as being
“very principal involved.” This was observed as the principal walked from one classroom
to the next in order to participate in every grade level meeting. During these meetings, he
invited the teachers to share in the decision making process. For example, in the 3
rd
grade
meeting, he welcomed input with regards to the benchmark and unit assessments.
Further, he emphasizes consistency, consistency with pacing guides, assessments,
and standards for proficiency. The principal holds teachers accountable for standards and
fidelity to the core through the expectation of teachers providing him with their pacing
guides and lessons plans as well as frequently walking through their classrooms. Teacher
C shared,
Your lesson plans are placed by the front door and he checks it every Monday and
it better be in the slot because then how do you know what you’re teaching
without it. So he does walk around and he’s not threatening. It’s a friendly walk
around, and I think that keeps us accountable even though I would say you can
walk into my class any time. But it does give you an edge and some of us are
perfectionist and it just keeps us with our A game.

Lesson plans are expected to match the core teaching. In reviewing a lesson plan, it was
evident that lessons complimented the core curriculum. The 1
st
grade lesson plan for
Teacher C provided detail, specifying times and content areas related to the core
curriculum (Appendix I). Not only are teachers held accountable by the principal, but
fellow teachers also pressure them. “Did you hit this? Did you hit that? They’re checking
because there is such a passion here,” Teacher C explained.

99

The principal conducts classroom visits a 2-3 times a week to see that students are
on target and requires teachers to have certain data (i.e. accelerated reader scores,
fluency/math facts) posted in their classrooms. “He really looks at all of those
[assessment] aspects to see where our kids are and to see if they’re meeting standards,”
Teacher B shared. In addition to lesson plans and classroom visits, “We [teachers] have
pacing plans that we do have to follow. There are certain criteria that us teachers have to
follow. You know following the pacing guide as a grade level, not only as an individual,”
Teacher E explained.
The principal emphasizes access to information regarding student learning. He
ensures that teachers know their students and their abilities through the use of data. “Data
is all around. Dr. H makes sure we hit it,” Teacher B commented. Data informs the
principal and teachers of those students that are in need of additional interventions.
Although the RTI model was in existence when the principal took his position at
Costa Elementary School, over the last five years, the program has been maintained.
Research reveals that the principal is essential to the implementation of RTI: not only in
the introduction of the model but also ensuring that it is sustained (Canter et al., 2008;
Kashima et al., 2009; Shepherd, 2006). The biggest challenge has been a financial one.
Staffing the learning center has been difficult, however because the principal supports it
and believe in its success, he has fought to maintain it. He shared,
I’ve just fought to keep it. Literally had to fight because I have a, I can’t afford to
put a full time teacher in there, so I had to work with the unions to keep the
person in there that I have.

100

The district supports the learning center, allowing the principal the latitude and
creativity to maintain it. Although not identical, the three other elementary schools in the
district now use the RTI framework. Other schools have based their model on Costa’s,
sharing similarities in the identification of students, tiers of more intensive instruction
and the use of the same adopted core curriculum.
Teachers have bought into the RTI framework because over the years they have
had the opportunity to see what the students do in the learning center and its
effectiveness. Emphasis on data that supports student gains further facilitate teacher buy-
in. Teacher D expressed,
The learning center is for kids that are struggling and the Reach program fills in
the gaps, fills in the holes that some of the kids are missing with reading. That
program, and again, I always question everything until I see the data. But the
learning center is a very, very good piece. It has shown very successful of filling
the gaps of kids that are FBB, BB and some Basic kids to move them accordingly.

Resources. Accessibility to resources is an important factor that influences the
success at Costa Elementary School. The key resources utilized to support school success
consisted of personnel and materials. Both funding and time are necessary for adequate
personnel and materials. Several of the staff explained that funding effected school wide
interventions and posed a challenge especially on personnel. The school psychologist
commented,
I think that the challenges here are the same as any other school, the resources
available. Because like anything, the leadership can use more help, the learning
center can use more help, there’s holes in everything. But you know with the
resources so limited, people are stretched so thin.

Due to the changes in staff, the number of students in the learning center has been
impacted. During observations of kindergarten, first and second grade classes in the
101

learning center, there were about 20 students with one teacher. Additionally, in previous
years, the students in the dual immersion class have benefited from the intensive
instruction in the learning center, but now were especially affected because there was no
longer a bilingual aide in the learning center. Teacher A shared,
When we had the learning center that really helped out. It helped them because
they did a lot of the pre-teaching and re-teaching in a small group with those kids
that really needed it…The kids felt a lot more successful and confident in
themselves and would say, “I already read this Maestra, I know who the
characters are.”

Although personnel have posed a challenge for the implementation of RTI, the
time for collaboration continues to be a critical factor that supports RTI. All interviews
indicated that collaboration was one of the biggest strengths of the school. The principal
asserted, “I’ve heard from outside people coming in that what separated us from some of
the neighboring schools that weren’t successful as far as scores and data is that our
teachers collaborate all the time, all the time.”
On Wednesdays, school is dismissed at 1:45, providing built in time for the
teachers to collaborate. Teacher C commented, “He’s [principal] good to let us
collaborate as a team twice a month.” While all teachers are given scheduled time to
collaborate on Smart Wednesdays, the principal along with most teachers agreed that
collaboration took place at any opportunity, almost on a daily basis. The principal
explained,
They [teachers] are meeting the day before or the day after Smart Wednesdays
because they need more time to collaborate. I find them in each other’s
classrooms after school informally almost on a daily basis…It’s become second
nature to them. It’s just how they teach now.

102

The focus of Smart Wednesdays was to discuss the curriculum and instruction
with emphasis on analyzing data to guide decision-making. Additionally, the learning
center teacher is in constant communication with all of the teachers. They discuss what
content areas students are struggling with, how they are doing in the general education
classroom and especially if the amount of intervention is appropriate or when they are
ready to be exited. “I think when you collaborate and when they’re fluid, they work. I
think when you put them in a group and they stay there the whole year, it’s not good,” the
learning center teacher shared.
Another essential piece to collaboration is the communication between the
teachers and the principal. Constant discussion between the principal and learning center
teacher involves general concerns, issues specific to grade levels and scheduling. While
funding has caused some difficulty for ensuring proper resources for Costa Elementary
School, they have used their strength of communication and collaboration to fill those
necessary gaps.
Analysis

Highly effective schools are successful because they focus on student learning
and then design structures to support that learning (Chenoweth, 2009). Because Costa’s
goals focused on the achievement of all students, structures and systems were established
to focus on and support those students that were struggling. Research was interpreted and
translated to practices that fit the unique needs and culture of their school and their
students. The school-wide structures of student identification, interventions and progress
monitoring has informed data-driven decision making by informing teachers of students’
103

needs, allowing appropriate interventions based on those needs and reflection of the
effectiveness of the interventions. This is crucial in response to when students do not
learn and has been influential to the success of the school.
Early identification through the use of data has allowed Costa to evaluate the
academic achievement of all students. Differentiated instruction, the afterschool
intervention program and the RTI framework afford students the opportunity to learn
through pre-teaching, re-teaching or remediation in certain strands. RTI is an educational
reform model that was designed to improve educational outcomes for all students as
intended by NCLB. The use of the three-tiered model allows flexibility and movement
between tiers based on the individual needs of each student. Tier 1 intervention through
differentiated instruction in the classroom characterizes best practices that early
intervention is the shared responsibility of both general and special education as indicated
in the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (OSERS, 2002).
Although research suggests small group instruction for Tier 2 and 3 with groupings of 4-6
students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007), effectiveness continues in the learning center with 20-30
students per class. Tier 2 and Tier 3 pullout groups to the learning center benefits all
students because while the students that require pre-teaching or re-teaching, a smaller
group of average or above average students remain in the classroom focusing on either
the core curriculum or engaging in more challenging projects. Student performance is
continually monitored through progress monitoring; enabling teachers to identify students
that are not meeting benchmarks and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.
Although progress monitoring at Tier 2 and Tier 3 do not occur as frequently in the
104

learning center as research indicates, ongoing assessments in the classroom along with
collaboration influences the success of the learning center.
Essential to the implementation of school-wide structural components are systems
that support them. The data that has been examined in this case study corroborates other
research on large-scale school reform that examines factors that have supported the
success of the implementation of RTI. The areas that were specifically targeted in this
case study included professional development, leadership and resources.
Professional development is crucial to the fidelity, integrity and sustainability of
RTI (Danielson et al., 2007; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008;
Walker-Dalhouse et al. 2009). Although the focus of professional development at Costa
Elementary School is the core curriculum rather than on the RTI framework including
processes, procedures and practices, teachers acknowledge their responsibility for student
learning. Professional development provides teachers the confidence to implement RTI
Tier 1 interventions within their classrooms and the ability to work with students of all
ability levels.
The principal’s commitment to maintaining necessary interventions and holding
high expectations of his staff ensures student success. Time for professional development
and staff meetings are consistently held to guarantee that teachers understand the
components of the core curriculum, goals, and expectations.
The final system that influenced the implementation of RTI was resources,
especially the time set aside for collaboration. Through the built in time of Smart
Wednesdays, the teachers are able to work as collaborative teams as a grade level at a
105

minimum of two times per week. According to Canter et al. (2008) team problem solving
skills involving the examination of students’ work and decision-making regarding
movement between tiers are essential in implementing RTI. Collaboration at Costa
contributes to the effectiveness of examining data and student work, making decisions
regarding individuals and instruction, as well as sharing expertise. It influences student
outcomes because “the ‘co-laboring’ and collective inquiry focus on the right work”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Karhaneck, 2010, p. 33).
Summary

The research data revealed structures and systems that contributed to the high
performance of a high poverty school, specifically in its implementation of the RTI
framework. Ultimately, the goal of Costa Elementary School was to provide support for
struggling students. To meet the needs of these struggling students, Costa identified
structures supported by research, which included universal screening, interventions and
progress monitoring through the use of data. Systems that strongly contributed not only to
RTI, but also to the overall success of student academic achievement were professional
development, leadership and resources including time for communication and
collaboration, which was paramount to student learning and achievement.
Sustained Systems to Support Achievement
Research question three asked: “ How are organizational systems implemented
and sustained to support higher levels of achievement for all students?” The
organizational systems at Costa Elementary School that have been implemented and
sustained to support higher levels of achievement for all students include: prioritizing
106

student achievement, implementing a coherent, standards-based curriculum and
instructional program, using assessment data to improve student achievement and
instruction, and ensuring availability of instructional resources. These will be discussed
in the following section.
Prioritizing Student Achievement
Effective schools emphasize a climate of high standards, academic achievement
and improvement among their students (Edmonds, 1979; Reeves, 2003; Williams et al.,
2005). This was evident at Costa Elementary School through the triangulation of
interviews conducted with the principal and all of the staff, observations and documents.
In fact, the Costa School Vision states “Each student will be brought to their fullest
individual potential by promoting confidence and self esteem, upholding a high
expectation for student achievement, flexible teaching through multiple assessments,
consistency in curriculum, discipline and teaching strategies.” During interviews, several
of the teachers emphasized the clear expectations of student achievement and expressed
their goals of ensuring students reach their highest potential. Teacher E asserted,
My goal is to make certain that every child succeeds. Every child has the
opportunity to excel tremendously regardless of their background and their culture
and every child needs to be pushed to a higher level that they are or that certain
teachers expect. You set the bar high and they reach it. But if you set the bar low,
you’re not really giving them the opportunity to excel in what they can.

Staff is conscious of student achievement, but so too are the students and parents.
At the beginning of the school year, the teacher, student and parent are expected to sign a
Three-Way Pledge found at the end of the Student/Parent Handbook. By signing the
pledge, everyone acknowledges the importance of education and academic performance
107

at Costa Elementary School and agrees to carry out certain responsibilities related to the
student’s academic success. During a classroom observation, it was noted that the
students have high expectations for themselves and want to be challenged. “Problem up
to the millions place,” the fourth grade students requested of Teacher D as they solved
math problems. Costa prioritizes student achievement through the emphasis of high
expectations and goal setting.
High Expectations. When asked to describe the practices and policies that
contribute to the high student performance at Costa Elementary School, the principal’s
response was, “High expectations is I think number one. In our community, people don’t
believe that we can be a top tier school, but we’re making them, we’re making them
believe.” At Costa Elementary School, systems that were present to support high
expectations included: a college going culture, strategies to engage all students, and
setting goals focused on student achievement. The principal expressed, “We are a no
excuses school. We have high expectations for every kid that we receive and we try to
take them to the next level.” Because teachers at Costa have a sense of responsibility for
the success of all students, they also hold the same expectations for students with
disabilities. Teacher E explained that when working with the student with special needs
in his class, he considers her a general education student first. She is expected to
participate in all activities with the general education class, using the regular core
curriculum with the necessary modifications and accommodations as stated on her
Individualized Education Program (IEP). “Everything we do, she does,” he expressed.
All students are expected to meet grade level standards; therefore, “Expectations are
108

totally, totally the same for all students… My expectation is no less for her than any other
kindergarten student,” he further articulated.
Similar to the 90/90/90 Schools, Costa Elementary School “made it clear to the
most causal observer that academic performance was highly prized” (Reeves, 2003,
p.188). This focus of academic performance and student improvement was evident
through the display of achievement data in the hallways and classrooms. Walking
through the main hallway was the 100,000-word challenge chart to track classrooms’
growth, an Accelerated Reader bulletin board, and a poster reading, “Costa loves students
to read,” emphasizing the school’s focus on reading practice. In addition to the focus on
reading, posted in the hallways was a “Traits of good writing poster” along with
excellent student writing samples from various grades. Further, there was a case of
trophies, certificate of excellences and students on the Honor Roll.
In the classrooms, student academic progress, specifically Accelerated Reader and
math facts were visually presented in several forms including charts and graphs. These
charts and graphs focused on specific learning goals and targeted student improvement.
Although all of the teachers were expected to demonstrate student progress on their
classroom walls, each did so in a creative manner, from sticker charts to movement of
racecars using titles such as “Driven to Read” or “Racing to Success.” Teacher C shared
that these classroom visuals motivated the students. She further explained, “They know if
their race car is not moving, they better practice their math facts…they want to try harder.
They’re coming in asking for extra practice sheets. Mom is talking about it. She wants
those practice sheets.” Additionally, student academic work was displayed throughout the
109

classrooms including essays, self-portraits, artwork, and exemplary math papers.
Academic achievement was highlighted in one classroom with the presentation of a
poster that listed “Things to remember to make me a successful student.”
Upon entering the school office, the first bulletin board that one sees exemplifies
a school with a college going culture. In big letters it reads, “Costa School – where
everyone is college bound.” Not only is this culture evident in the front office, but the
students are also surrounded by college bulletin boards with various college pennants,
stickers, posters and teacher diplomas in their classrooms. “They are told they are going
to college. And we don’t stop there. Everyday we are using college terms, terminology,
training them that that’s their focus, that’s their future,” Teacher C explained. In that
particular teacher’s classroom, there was a poster on the wall conveying that the students
in that classroom were the class of 2026.
In Teacher A’s classroom, they do a daily chant, “We’re going to college, we’re
going to college!” She has instilled in them that they are all going to college, making it a
point to reinforce that it is not an option. “Just putting it into their heads that they can do
it makes a big difference in the kids,” she shared. Students have grown accustom to this
college going culture that they recognize different banners and pennants, know names of
different colleges and express that they are going to a particular college.
The bar is set high and teachers are expected to find a way for all students to
participate. The principal explained,
One of the main strategies that we are using that I call a non-negotiable this year
is called, every student answers every question. And that basically means that
every time a student is asked a question, they need to have the opportunity to
answer the question
110

This is accomplished not only through verbal responses, but some teachers shared that
they also use different modalities. Teacher B asserted, “Strategies that I use in my class, I
think to engage is I do a lot of kinesthetic.” She further explained that through movement
activities, all of the students are involved and excited about learning. It also allows for the
concepts to be more concrete and the students are able to “hang their learning on
something.” The movements can be as simple as pointing one way for compare and the
other for contrast.
Regardless if a teacher is instructing a general education student, a student at-risk
or a student with disabilities, modalities to engage all students included various ways of
partnering: pair-share, my turn-your turn, repeating out loud, work on whiteboards, or
coral responses. As observed in the learning center, after direct instruction, students
interacted with each other as they turned to a partner and discussed the number of sounds
in a word. “Basically, we have, we’re moving away from individually asking students.
It’s every child, every single time,” Teacher C expressed. In a fourth grade classroom,
when the teacher asked the students how to solve a math problem, it was observed that all
of the students provided the teacher the answer to the steps of the problem.
At Costa Elementary School, teachers make it a priority to meet or exceed the
standards and continue to expect to “Get as high as we can get them, advanced, advanced,
advanced.” Most of the teachers’ goals involved meeting standards or ensuring that all of
their students reach proficiency on the state test. Teacher A expressed, “My goal is that
all my kids will be proficient or advanced on the CSTs.” In a fourth grade classroom,
Teacher D’s goal is to move all of his students up 30-40 points on the CST. He explained,
111

Every child, at least weekly, if not sooner than that, every child knows what their
levels are. Advanced, proficient, where they’re at, where they need to go and how
to improve. Parents know that, students know that and we’re all going towards
that goal.

The principal further expressed his goal for student achievement,
That every student leaves my school proficient. That, that’s the federal goal, that’s
the state goal and really, that’s our goal here. We want everybody proficient or
above and that’s, that’s a pretty, pretty big task. But over the last 3 or 4 years, we
have really moved our proficiency rates to a new level. Our new goal is a two-
year goal, 90% proficiency leaving our school.

A priority of Costa Elementary is not only improving their API score, but to reach
900. This was evident in the school main hallway through the display of their “Road to
900” banner with their scores moving closer to their goal. Also noted on the top of staff
bulletins was “API: 900!” In the classrooms, the importance of goals and standards was
also apparent. California state standards were displayed in the classrooms, along with
SMART goals and English Language Arts and Math objectives of the day. Further,
through document analysis, in the principal’s letter found in the Student/Parent
Handbook, he explains API and announces the continual growth in student achievement.
Student success cannot be achieved without the enthusiasm and devotion of the
staff at Costa. A number of teachers articulated that one of the strengths of Costa
Elementary School is the staff of dedicated teachers. “I think that we have, the teachers
are very committed. They go out of their way. And that’s in the classroom as well. We’re
very committed to our students too,” Teacher A explained. An example of this
commitment is with the after school program.
Teachers provide after school intervention multiple times a week for students that
are struggling to meet grade level standards. One of the challenges facing the school is
112

the lack of money to pay the teachers for their extra time. So what do they do? The
principal shared,
They [teachers] basically came up with a solution of they work a day, I pay them.
The next day they do it for free. I have teachers that are doing before or after
school three times a week and on average and I’m only paying them a day or
maybe two, two days a week right now. So they volunteer their time because they
have a dedication to the kids and a dedication to the program.

Implementing a Coherent, Standards-based Curriculum and Instructional Program
According to Edmonds (1979), schools should take the responsibility for
instructing students on basic skills. Costa Elementary School emphasizes this concept
through the use of instructional programs with the district-adopted core curriculum.
Although the math adoption, Houghton Mifflin California Math, is in its third year of
implementation, this year, the district adopted a new English Language Arts curriculum,
SRA Imagine It. This new adoption was chosen because there was a dual immersion
component and it was more rigorous than other curriculum companies. However, many
of the teachers shared that one of the challenges for them this year was the adoption of
the new language arts curriculum. The literacy coach explained,
And that has put a lot of stress on the teachers this year because it is a new
program and they are learning a new program, but yet they still have expectations
that their children are going to perform, you know as well as before.

Every grade level engages in 315 instructional minutes during the school day. Of the 5
instructional hours, three hours are committed to English language arts and about 1.5
hours to Math. The 90/90/90 study indicates that high performing schools devoted three
hours each day to literacy – two hours of reading and one hour of writing (Reeves, 2003).
In reviewing Costa’s documents, the ELA adopted curriculum, SRA Imagine It
113

recommends daily time allotments of instructional strands (Appendix J). The
recommendations include one hour dedicated to Preparing to Read which encompasses
phonics, fluency and word knowledge, one hour to Reading and Responding and one
hour to Language arts including spelling, writing and conventions. Reviewing a first
grade and fourth grade lesson plan revealed this commitment to the recommended three
one-hour blocks of English language arts. Although much of the school day emphasizes
English language arts and math, the students participate in computer, library, P.E, art and
music one day a week.
Curriculum. Costa Elementary School emphasizes the importance of the core
curriculum. Fidelity to the core was a crucial concept that was introduced to Costa almost
ten years ago and they have continued to work together to promote the learning of the
basic skills of English language arts and mathematics. Through his 20 years of experience
at Costa, Teacher D witnessed this commitment to the core as an essential trend to the
success of the school. He explained, “Teachers finally decided that in elementary school
there were only two things that we really needed to teach, reading and math.”
Additionally, he believed in the importance of “Forcing teachers to do their jobs and that
means stick to the core, fidelity to the core, do the curriculum period. That’s what you
have to do.” Teaching the core, along with holding high expectations, is powerful
because teachers are demonstrating “collective responsibility to ensure that students learn
rather than that they are taught” (DeFour et al., 2010, p. 23). This responsibility was
observed and understood by students in a first grade classroom as the teacher explained
114

that it was “my job to teach and your job to” and they responded together “listen and
learn.”
While students with disabilities at Costa receive most of their instruction in the
general education setting utilizing the core curriculum, additional support is provided
through RSP. Participation in a group of 4-5 students allows these students to master the
same content standards as general education students using the Strategic Support Guide.
A supplemental program to the ELA adopted core curriculum, the Strategic Support
Guide allows for rigorous, standards-based instruction and a pacing guide that aligns to
the general education curriculum.
In addition to the use of the core curriculum, reading has been emphasized as a
priority at the school site to increase student achievement. The school has established a
goal that every student leaves Costa reading at a proficient level. Reading is emphasized
because the principal believes that in order to be successful, “they’re going to have to be
reading to learn, not learning to read.” The emphasis on reading was evident through the
Accelerated Reader charts and bulletin boards as well as posters found among the
hallways. Walking through the school site, on the wall in both English and Spanish a
poster read “20 minutes, read to your child.” The importance of reading is further stressed
to parents in the Student/Parent handbook setting the expectation that in addition to
nightly homework, parents/guardians are to read with, to or listen to their children read
20 minutes a day. The school librarian supported that the students at Costa read quite a
bit. While she sees students during their scheduled weekly class times, she also
115

frequently sees them during open periods at which time they go into the library to
exchange books for ones they have already read.
Consistency and Alignment. Collaboration is vital to sustain fidelity to the core.
Teachers work together to ensure that the curriculum is aligned with the standards and
that the curriculum, textbooks and instructional materials are well understood
(Sunderman, 2000). Through collaboration, teachers keep each other accountable and
communication about the core is consistent. DeFour et al. (2010) assert that collaboration
is effective only when the focus is on student or teacher learning. The principal
confirmed,
When we first started rolling out grade level meetings, it was pretty difficult
to get them on the same page. They spent a lot of time on housekeeping, rules,
what are we going to do for the fieldtrip, what are we going to do for that, and it
wasn’t curriculum based. And over the years, we have really moved more, a more
curriculum based.

Additionally, collaboration is essential to assure consistency within the grade
level. At grade level meetings, “The main goals are primarily curriculum. It’s important
that everyone is on the same page. Teaching the same core, assessing the same core,
testing and checking one another’s scores,” Teacher C shared. Consistency was made
certain through pacing guides, shared goals and interventions among the teachers. During
an observation at a 3
rd
grade level meeting, pacing guides were provided and discussed
and all of the teachers checked in with each other to see how everyone was doing. In
order to ensure consistency, pacing guides, goals and interventions were established as a
grade level. Teacher E commented, “We do go over SMART goals. We target a goal as a
grade level and see where are their weaknesses, where are their strengths and then just
116

push forward from that goal.” Establishing goals through collaboration was further
affirmed during observations at grade level meetings. At the second grade meeting, the
teachers discussed their goals for the end of the first quarter and how students would be
selected and awarded with pizza. The principal also participated as he visited the grade
level meetings; clarified goals and ensured established goals were set high. Research has
shown that collaboration is essential to school improvement. It should involve the
interaction between teachers and administrators (Levine & Ornstein, 1993). Ultimately,
to guarantee consistency and fidelity to the core, Teacher C declared,
Basically, he likes to see, when he leaves one classroom, he likes to see the same
thing. He wants to walk into my classroom and go next door and see that I’m
teaching nouns, person, place or things. And if that’s the case, then he knows his
students are getting the core. And the core is the ticket to their learning.

Using Assessment Data to Improve Student Achievement and Instruction
Research indicates that high performing schools promote the use of multiple
assessments and frequent tracking of student progress (Reeves, 2003; Williams et al.,
2005; Springboard Schools, 2006). The principal and the teachers at Costa Elementary
School indicated that several forms of assessment data that focused on student
achievement were regularly used throughout the year. “We have a ton of assessments,”
Teacher C shared. Student achievement is monitored at Costa through the use of common
assessments and collaboration among teachers. During observation of the third grade
level meeting, one teacher suggested, “Should we take a look at the unit assessment
first?” They further discussed the amount of testing and made sure that they were all
taking the same approach to students’ progress evaluation. When the principal arrived at
the meeting, the discussion continued and they suggested that perhaps with the amount of
117

testing required, that they should use the benchmark assessment as the pre-test and unit
assessment as the post-test.
According to Teacher E, common assessments were utilized for all students.
Students with disabilities are given the same assessments and data is analyzed as a whole
group. “All of the scores are thrown into a pot and the data is compared,” he explained.
Rather than viewing data of students with disabilities as a separate group, “as a grade
level, we find the percentage of our students to see which one scored low, which one
scored BB and FBB and just work with those low performing students,” he further
commented. The emphasis on data ensures that all students’ needs are being addressed.
Data. All of the teachers interviewed described the principal as being “big on
data.” The learning center teacher commented, “I know [principal] is huge on data. It’s
like a data driven school. Every meeting, there’s something new about data. He predicts
the future with data. It’s a lot of data. But obviously it’s working.” The principal admitted
that he emphasized data and that he “loves data and knows his data.” He educates the
teachers on how to read data, what to look for and the expectation. He believes that
utilizing data has taken the school to the next level because:
1. They’re aware of data and look at data and 2. They use the data to self-correct
whether they get good data. Ok what I’m doing is working and I’ll keep it going
or if they have some holes in their data, they’ll work to fix it.

In reviewing documents prepared by the principal for district presentations, emphasis was
made on data-driven decision making. He suggested that the key components to Costa’s
approach included: educating various stakeholders about API and AYP, using the data to
motivate students, parents and teachers and evaluating the school’s efforts.
118

The teachers have been educated on how to understand and use data to inform and
target their instruction. Common assessments were utilized as a reference point, allowing
teachers to determine students’ baselines as well as direct future planning. The focus is
placed on mastery of skills. “By seeing the actual scores in the data, we can see what’s
working, what’s not, eliminate what’s not working into what is working so we can point
the kids in the right direction,” Teacher A shared. Through the analysis of data, teachers
are able to re-teach, pre-teach or preview the necessary strands. The learning center
teacher stated, “Data is that hard evidence of this is what you need to do or not do.”
Rather than utilizing instructional time to continually review concepts that students have
already mastered, data confirms areas of need. Teacher A explained,
You need to base it on data. You need to base it on something. You can’t just say,
I think I’m just going to go over ABC order again because I have to fill in some
time, but maybe the kids already mastered it.

Teachers utilize data from benchmarks or SMART goals to ascertain the
achievement levels of students and target grade level instruction and instructional
strategies. The literacy coach explained, “If they see a teacher that has strong data in an
area, they can say, what are you doing?” Ultimately, Smart Wednesday collaboration is
effective because teachers have the opportunity to share successful intervention
strategies, placing the true focus on students’ needs.
Ensuring Availability of Instructional Resources
According to Williams et al. (2005), high performing schools have a quality
teaching staff, adequate resources and materials and leadership support. Although
research indicates that minority and low-income students in urban settings are most likely
119

to find themselves in classrooms staffed by inadequately prepared, inexperienced
teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000 & Ingersoll, 1999), this is not true at Costa
Elementary school, instead it is quite the opposite as seen in Table 4.5. Of the 31 teachers
at Costa, 97% are fully credentialed.
Table 4.5: Percent of Teacher Credentials from 2003-2009
Source: California Department of Education

Number of Fully University Emergency
Year Teachers Credentialed Intern Pre-Intern Credential Waiver

2003-2004 29 79.3 10.3 6.9 3.4 0

2004-2005 32 87.5 9.4 3.1 0 0

2005-2006 33 93.9 9.1 0 0 0

2006-2007 33 90.9 9.1 0 0 0

2007-2008 34 100 0 0 0 0

2008-2009 31 96.8 3.2 0 0 0

The students at Costa Elementary School have benefited from stability in the teaching
staff as seen in Figure 4.10. The average years of teaching experience at Costa
Elementary School is 12.5 years. There has been a steady trend over the last six years of
teachers with over 10 years of teaching experience as well as in time the district.

120

Figure 4.10: Teacher Experience from 2003-2009
Source: California Department of Education

In addition to the teachers being highly qualified, they have high expectations for the
students, exude a sense of community and display the motivation to teach. Teacher F
expressed,
I’ve noticed here at Costa that they all work together very well. They have a good
team effort. To be honest with you, I don’t see anyone complaining a whole lot.
Everybody works really hard. I see quite a few teachers that come in early. They
stay late. They do extra things above and beyond what their regular duties are.

During classroom observations, teachers engaged students and provided them with
positive feedback. On the playground and in the hallways, students do not hesitate to
approach the principal or teachers. “Hi Mr. H,” several students initiated as he walked
through the hallways. Teacher E expressed his excitement for teaching kindergarten and
expressed, “I like that feeling of them coming up and you know the hugs and it’s a well
rewarding job, very self-fulfilling.”
121

The principal also ensured that the teachers have the necessary instructional
materials and programs as well as ongoing professional development and time for
collaboration. He expressed that one of his mantras this year is “fill the need, fill the
gap.” Although the State’s financial situation has impeded on school programs and
resources, he has fought and worked with the teachers to keep their interventions in place
in order to serve all students, especially those that are struggling.
Analysis
Through data analysis, themes emerged explaining the implementation and
sustainability of organizational systems that support academic achievement at Costa
Elementary School. Consistent with the characteristics revealed in the study conducted
by Williams et al. (2005), the major themes included prioritizing student achievement,
implementing a coherent, standards-based curriculum and instructional program, using
assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction and ensuring availability
of instructional resources. Success for all students including those with disabilities is
dependent on the integration and high expectations held by teachers.
Central to these themes is collaboration. It provides time for teachers to discuss
the methods for monitoring student progress and effective ways to use data for decision-
making. In prioritizing all students, effective collaboration engages teachers in
discussions regarding the desired student learning outcomes, strategies for monitoring if
students have mastered the intended outcomes, the necessary steps for struggling students
and strategies for those students that are already proficient. Figure 4.11 demonstrates
effective collaboration at Costa Elementary School.
122

Figure 4.11: Effective Collaboration at Costa Elementary School

Note: Adapted from DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising
the Bar and Closing the Gap: Whatever It Takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Grade level meetings allow the teachers at Costa to participate in collaborative
teams. The collaborative teams have transitioned from discussing fieldtrips to focusing on
student achievement. In order to address what the teachers want their students to learn,
SMART goals are developed, with high expectations on mind. These goals provide
teachers with guidance for the development of mutual lessons plans and pacing guides.
Teams work together to understand the curriculum, assessments and strategies to
implement in the classroom. Common assessments are used and data is analyzed to assess
the students’ mastery of skill and monitor progress. The data indicates the ability level of
the students as well as guides instructional strategies. Students that reveal continued
difficulty are referred for interventions. Grade level meetings provide teachers the
opportunity to share strategies that work and do not work. For those students that have
123

already gained proficiency, through differentiated instruction, they are provided with
challenge questions or projects.
Not only is the staff at Costa a collaborative group – working as effective teams,
but they are also a dedicated group, going above and beyond their required duties.
Interventions to assist those struggling students are a priority of the principal and the
school. While it may be uncommon, it is apparent that the staff at Costa are unique,
dedicated teachers that care about their students as they volunteer their time to provide
interventions that they believe will assist their students succeed.
Summary
While Costa Elementary School shares common characteristics with high
performing schools, they have implemented systems that fit their school and culture. An
exact model does not exist in working with students that attend high poverty schools, thus
Costa has implemented and sustained systems that work for them. They are an effective
school because they have a principal that holds them accountable to high student
expectations, a staff of dedicated teachers that work collaboratively and are committed to
teaching all students, and interventions that emphasize fidelity to the core. According to
Edmonds (1979), “One of the cardinal characteristics of effective schools is that they are
as eager to avoid things that don't work as they are committed to implementing things
that do” (p. 22). This devotion to implementing systems that are effective is evident in
Costa’s development of high achieving students.

124

Chapter Summary

The findings of this chapter have provided specific details and analyses regarding
the trends and patterns of performance and the systems and structures that attribute to the
success at Costa Elementary School, a high performing, high achieving school. Further
examined was the implementation and sustainability of these systems. Results of this
case study were based on various data sources including interviews, observations and
document analysis. In Chapter Five, an overview of the study will be presented as well as
a summary of findings, conclusion, implications and areas for future research.
125

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
The emphasis on equality of educational opportunity for all students, in particular
disadvantaged and underprivileged children, has led to many school reforms dating back
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The current
reauthorizations of federal mandates including No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) place even greater
importance on increased accountability and improved student achievement. Schools are
required to close the achievement gap and provide effective interventions to all students
regardless of race, income or background. Sadly, the students at greatest risk of being left
behind are those with disabilities in special education.
Despite the fact that many high poverty schools are associated with low
achievement, successful high poverty schools exist. Organizational structures and
systems have been identified that promote the high achievement of high poverty schools
with many at-risk students (Hughes, 1999; Levine et al., 2000; Marzano, 2003; Reeves,
2003; Williams et al., 2005). According to Marzano (2003), following the direction
provided by research impacts student achievement. Improving outcomes for all students
through early identification and the use of scientifically based instruction prior to a
referral to special education has been the focus of research efforts.
One such structure established to provide early intervention for struggling students
is Response to Intervention (RTI). Unlike other reform efforts, RTI focuses on data
based decision-making. Through the use of data, the multi-tiered framework identifies
126

struggling students, monitors student progress and provides differentiated instruction
using research-based interventions (Bender, 2008; National Center on Response to
Intervention, 2010). Imperative for the success of the RTI framework, it is not only
necessary to establish structures, but they must also be sustained. Hence, systems of
professional development, leadership and resource allocation further enhance the
implementation of RTI. As RTI gains both political and popular traction across the
United States, this research will contribute to the understanding of RTI through the
analysis of its development, implementation and sustainability at an existing high poverty
high achieving elementary school.
The purpose of this case study was to examine the role of the organizational
structures and systems that promote academic success at a high-poverty, high-achieving
school. Specifically, it investigated the impact of RTI at one elementary school to better
understand how they provide early intervention in order meet the needs of their
struggling students and those who have been identified for special education. The data
gathered in this study focused on answering the following research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students attending
high poverty, high achieving schools?
a. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students in
special education?
2. What are the perceived school wide systems and structures that contribute
to high achievement in high poverty schools?
127

a. What are the systems and structures perceived to have the most impact
on the implementation of RTI?
3. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of achievement for all students?
Summary of Research Findings
Of the 625 students at Costa Elementary School, the majority is Hispanic (71%)
with 86% receiving free and reduced lunch. English language learners represent 41% of
the student population and the percentage of students with disabilities has decreased to
5%. Costa is a school with high minority, high student population, yet student
achievement has steadily increased. While the achievement data of students with
disabilities suggests that they are generally performing equivalently with other
subgroups, fluctuation in achievement has been noted. The fluctuation in scores was
perceived by the principal to be due to the small number of students in their special
education population. Utilizing CST data is not always reflective of student progress,
especially for those with disabilities. Costa’s various progress-monitoring methods enable
teachers to better evaluate the growth of students that are struggling. The trends and
patterns clearly demonstrate an increase in students receiving learning center assistance,
intervening early for those students who have been identified as struggling. While the
focus of research was on those students in special education; arguably, Costa is
decreasing placements with thorough preventative measures and early intervention. The
appropriateness of Costa’s response to match the most fitting services early is reflected in
the continually increasing performance data.
128

The findings of this case study identified structures and systems at Costa
Elementary School that influence the success of all students. Specifically the
implementation of RTI was consistent with the components of universal screening, a
multiple tired model, and progress monitoring identified in prior research (Berkeley,
Bender, Peaster & Saunders, 2009; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001, 2006, 2007; Gettinger &
Stoiber, 2007; Johnson et al. 2006). The need for intervention was determined through
universal screening at the beginning of the school year. All students were identified
through assessment data either with the Bracken, Intensive Reading Kit Assessment
Guide or CST. A three-tiered model was utilized. Tier 1 was provided in the classroom
through the use of instructional accommodations in the core curriculum during classroom
workshop, Tier 2 provided more intensive intervention in smaller groups in the learning
center with a certificated teacher, and Tier 3 afforded students the most intensive
interventions with additional time, through double blocking, in the learning center.
Continual collaboration and progress monitoring provided information regarding student
progress and fluidity between tiers.
Systems that influenced the implementation of RTI were also revealed through this
study. They included professional development, leadership and resources availability and
allocation. Professional development and ongoing training provided the teachers at Costa
with ongoing knowledge on the core curriculum, encouraged collective responsibility for
all students and supported the collaborative relationships central to RTI. The role of
leadership was also an important factor that influenced RTI implementation. Although
there was little involvement from the district, support was provided to the principal in
129

maintaining the learning center. The principal was reflective in assessing what worked
for the culture of the school. He demonstrated his support at grade level meetings, held
teachers accountable through the expectation of consistency of pacing guides and lesson
plans and emphasized student abilities and progress through the use of data.
Despite financial difficulties especially with regards to personnel, because the
principal firmly believed in the success of the RTI model, he has “literally fought to keep
it.” While financial limitations posed a challenge for Costa, it did not impact the resource
of time for collaboration. Through frequent collaboration between teachers, the learning
center teacher and principal, an understanding of individual students and their needs is
ensured.
In order to sustain the high levels of achievement for all students, this study
revealed how organizational systems were implemented. The first theme that emerged
was prioritizing student achievement. All of the teachers expressed setting high
expectations for all students by providing a college going culture, engaging all students
and focusing their goals on student achievement. Although Costa has an API of 856, they
are always looking toward the future, pushing their students to even higher levels as
evident in their hallway display reading “Road to 900.” The second theme, implementing
a coherent, standards-based curriculum and instructional program emphasized fidelity to
the core curriculum. Teacher A stated, “The main goals are primarily the curriculum.”
Teachers at Costa dedicate majority of their instructional time to the basic skills of math
and English language arts. Professional development and collaboration were essential to
ensuring that the shared knowledge led to the consistency and alignment of lessons,
130

pacing guides and assessments. It was also central to the third theme of using assessment
data to improve student achievement. Smart Wednesdays provided teachers collaboration
time to review the data and determine: What do we want student to learn? How do we
know the student is learning? What happens when the student is not learning? What
happens with the student knows it? Data Analysis worksheets were completed by the
teachers to determine necessary targeted areas, assessment results, and recommended
instructional strategies or interventions. The final theme, instruction and ensuring
availability of instructional resources assured a quality, credentialed and experienced
teaching staff, adequate resources and materials and leadership support.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This study focused on how the implementation of an early intervention framework,
RTI, influenced academic achievement. The data from interviews, observations and
documents should be used to guide decision-making regarding methods to improve the
education of all students. Although the findings from this case study substantiate
research, the results offer implications for future policy and practice in high poverty
schools.
• School-wide systems and structures were identified that attributed to the success of
Costa Elementary School. It would be beneficial to identify components that have
shown success or hindrance at the school-site and devise a plan to ensure
adjustments are made to meet the needs of the students and the culture of the
school.

131

• The knowledge from research and policy should be applied to practice in the school
setting.
o The RTI framework was implemented to meet students’ needs as an
early intervention rather than “wait to fail.” The structure of the model and
practices should reflect the school culture to ensure that it is sustained.
Decisions should be made to determine the appropriate assessments to
identify students at-risk, the number of tiers, interventions and frequency
and duration at each tiers, and assessments to monitor student progress. In
addition, it is necessary to consider the individuals that will be involved in
the implementation of RTI, the available funding or resources, and how
the framework be monitored to ensure fidelity.
o There should be shared responsibility of general education and special
education teachers for students at risk. To ensure the success of all
students, they must work together to provide effective and differentiated
instruction in the general education classroom.
• Provide ongoing professional development and opportunities for teacher
collaboration. This ensures that teachers’ knowledge is up to date on instructional
strategies, curriculum, goal setting, assessment and data analysis. Administrators
should ensure time throughout the school year for professional development and
collaboration. In order to meet the needs of all students, teachers and administrators
should engage in effective collaboration and answer: What do we want students to

132

learn? How do we know the student is learning? What happens when he student is
not learning? What happens when the student knows it?
Recommendations for Future Research
The current study examined the structures and systems that contribute to the high
performance of one high poverty elementary school in Southern California. In particular,
influential structures and systems with the implementation of RTI were identified and
discussed. Despite the fact that this study provided a comprehensive analysis of RTI,
given that it is a fairly new educational reform model, areas to consider for future
research emerged and are recommended.
• A longitudinal study is needed to establish the success and sustainability of the
systems, structures and interventions that are implemented at several high
performing, high poverty schools. The study should examine changes over time and
improving the fidelity of the implementation of interventions such as RTI.

• Costa’s RTI framework focused on interventions in English language arts.
Additionally, there is little research on RTI with other curricular areas. Future
research should explore RTI in the context of other content areas such as math as
well as using DIS services such as speech and occupational therapy to form a more
comprehensive learning environment for students.

• The current population of students with disabilities at Costa was 5% of the student
population. Future research should involve a school with a greater special
education population to determine how interventions such as RTI inform or change
special education eligibility diagnostic criteria.

133

• A system at Costa that was identified as sustaining student achievement is
implementing a coherent, standards-based curriculum and instructional program.
Of the 315 instructional minutes in the school day, three hours are committed to
English language arts and 1.5 hours to math. Future research should investigate the
long term effects or impact this has on students as they move on to middle school
and high school.

• The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education recommends a
movement toward early identification and immediate intervention. This study
focused on the implementation of RTI as an early intervention framework at Costa
Elementary School as a structure that influences student achievement. A
comparative case study should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of other
early intervention models.

Conclusion
The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (OSERS, 2002)
was formed to “improve America’s special education system and move it from a culture
of compliance to a culture of accountability for results” (p. 4). Based on the findings of
the report, three recommendation were made: 1) not only is it necessary to guarantee a
free and appropriate public education, but is must be driven by high expectations and
student outcomes, 2) rather than waiting to fail, the model guiding special education
should include early identification and intervention, and 3) students with disabilities
should be first considered general education students. Costa is in alignment with these
recommendations as they prioritize accountability and student achievement through the
134

implementation of RTI. While there is a climate of high expectations for all students, RTI
emphasizes early identification, evidenced based practices and differentiated instruction
in the general education classroom as the Tier 1 intervention. The hope of RTI is not only
to improve academic performance, but also reduce the inappropriate identification of
minority students in special education.
The evidence from this study demonstrates Costa’s emphasis on ensuring that all
students attain academic success. While historically, the socioeconomic background of
the student population and other demographic variables predicted academic performance,
schools like Costa prove that such failure is not predetermined. By translating research
into practice, Costa suggested that focusing on a climate of high standards, implementing
a standards based curriculum, monitoring student progress, and ensuring effective
teachers and leadership (Edmonds, 1979; Levine, Cooper & Hilliard, 2000; Reeves,
2003; Williams et al., 2005) make it possible and sustainable for high poverty schools to
be effective schools.

135

REFERENCES

Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices
in reading are ineffective?: An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431.

Angelee, P. E. & Schmid, J. B. (2007). School structure and the identity of teacher
leaders: Perspectives of principals and teachers. Journal of School Leadership,
17(6), 771-799.

Ardoin, S. P. (2006). The response in response to intervention: Evaluating the utility of
assess maintenance of intervention effects. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 713-
725.

Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three
tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making
and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362-380.

Belfiore, P. J., Auld, R. & Lee, D. L. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education:
Equal access and a pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8),
855-863.

Bender, W. N. (2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities:
Best teaching practices for general education and special educators (2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of
response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
42(1), 85-95.

Berliner, D. C. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 949-995.

Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in
special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism.
Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24-28

Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V. & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban school failure and
disproportionality in a post-Brown era: Benign neglect of the Constitutional rights
of students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26(4), 70-81.

136

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
73(2), 125-230.

Brown v. Board of Education, (1954). 347 U. S. 483

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. A., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of
responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-
implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381- 394.

Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Comparison of existing response-to-
intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The
California School Psychologist, 10, 9-20.

Butler, Lorrie (2009). A step-by-step guide to response to intervention. Principal, 89(1),
46-52.

California Department of Education. (2009). Core Components of RTI. Retrieved
February 2, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/ri/

California Department of Education. (2010). 2009-2010 Accountability Progress
Reporting (APR). Retrieved February 10, 2010 from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2010/2010GrowthDstApi

Canter, A., Klotz, M., & Cowan, K. (2008). Response to intervention: The future for
secondary schools. Principal Leadership, 12-15.

Chang, H. N. & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged and accounted for: The critical
importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for
Children in Poverty. Retrieved on April 5, 2010 from
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_837.html

Chenoweth, K. (2009). It can be done, it’s being done, and here is how. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(1), 38-41.

Chin, P. (2004). Brown's far reaching impact. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(4), 9-11.

Clark, R. M. (1988). Parents as providers of linguistic and social capital. Education
Horizons, 66(2), 93-95.

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (COLEMAN) study (EEOS). Ann
Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

137

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cummings, K. D., Atkins, T., Allison, & Cole, C. (2008). Response to intervention:
Investigating the new role of special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children,
40(4), 24-31.

Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2007). Professional development, capacity
building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention
implementation. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 632-637.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the
education of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263-
287.

Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
districts and state contexts. Education Administration Quarterly, 21, 121-153.

Datnow, A. & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform:
Leadership in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(2),
219-249.

Datnow, A., & Springfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform.
Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 51(1-2), 183-204.

DeBray-Pelot, E. & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the
federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy,
23(1), 15-42.

Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Wndram,
H., & Stachel, N. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress monitoring system.
Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 44-55.

Desimone, L. (2002). How can Comprehensive School Reform models be successfully
implemented. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the Bar and Closing
the Gap: Whatever it Takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(1), 15-24.

138

Elliott, S.N., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and
performance assessments as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement
tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224–233.

Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist,
59(2), 77-92.

Fermanich, M. L. & Kimball, S. M. (2002). You can get there from here: How three
urban schools could use existing resources to afford comprehensive school reform.
Journal of Education Finance, 28, 75-96.

Ferri, B. A. & Connor, D. J. (2005). In the shadow of Brown: Special education and
overrepresentation of students of color. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 93-
100.

Fletcher, J.M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and
remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.

Fritzberg, G. J. (2004). No Child Left Behind? Assessing President Bush's assessment
law. Educational Foundations, 18(3/4), 7-24.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2001). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for
practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57-
61.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why
and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness to
intervention: Definition, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities
construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to
intervention. Teaching Exception Children, 39, 14-20.

Gall, M., Gall, J. & Borg, W. (2007). Educational Research- An Introduction (8
th
ed.),
Pearson Education Inc.

Gersten R. & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.

139

Gettinger, M & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a response to intervention model for early
literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 27(4), 198-213.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly,32(1), 5-44.

Handler, B. R. (2007). Who’s in the classroom down the hall? An Examination of
demographic shifts within segregated special education Classrooms, 1975–2005.
American Educational History Journal, 34(2), 379–393

Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system:
Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoffman, E. (1975) The American public school and the deviant child: The
origins of their involvement. Journal of Special Education, 9, 415-423.

Huefner, D. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under IDEA '97.
Journal of Special Education, (33)4, 195-204.

Hughes, M. F. (1999). Similar students-dissimilar opportunities for success: High and
low achieving elementary school sin rural, high poverty areas of West Virginia.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(1), 47-58.

Ikeda, M. J., & Gustafson, J. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11’s problem solving
process: impact on issues related to special education. Research Report No. 2002-
02. Johnson, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency II.

Ikeda, M. J., Tilly III, W.D, Stumme, J., Volmer, L. & Allison, R. (1996). Agency-wide
implementation of problem solving consultation: Foundations, current
implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(3), 228-
243.

Individuals with Disabilities Act. (1997). Retrieved March 28, 2010 from
http:/www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA

Individuals with Disabilities Act. (2004). Retrieved March 25, 2010 from
http://www.idea.ed.gov/view/explore

Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of under qualified teachers in American secondary
schools. Educational Researcher, 28, 26–37.

140

James, F. (2004). Response to intervention in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), 2004. International Reading Association.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to
intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on
Learning Disabilities.

Jones, L. (2002). A message from our elders. In L Jones (Ed.), Making it on broken
promises: African American male scholars confront the culture of higher education
(pp. 1-12). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer
look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural responsivity. Center for
Evaluation and Education Policy.

Kavale, K.A., & Fomess, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and
don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239-256.

Kim, J. S. & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equality, Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.

Klinger, J. K. & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to
intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108-117.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, H. (1999). High versus low
implementation of instructional support teams. Remedial and Special Education,
20(3), 170–183.

Kovaleski, J. F. & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale:
Implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27,
16-25.

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.

Kunjufu, J. (2001). State of emergency: We must save African American males. Chicago:
African American Images.

Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S. & Tallant, K. (2010). The School
Turnaround Field Guide. Boston, MA: FSG Social Impact Advisors.

141

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teacher of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic
leadership for large-scale reform: The case of England's national literacy and
numeracy strategy. School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 57-79.

Levine, D., Cooper, E. J. & Hilliard, A. (2000). National urban alliance professional
development model for improving achievement in the context effective schools
research. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 305-322.

Levine, D. U. & Ornstein, A. C. (1993). School effectiveness and national reform.
Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 335-345.

Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequality in special education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to Intervention: Prevention
outcomes and learning disability identification patterns. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(6), 539-544.

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 & Practice, 18(3), 187-200.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Aurora, CO: MCREL.

McDavid, J., & Hawthorn, L. (2006). Program evaluation and performance
measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.

McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom
organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339-351.

McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students
with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 265-278.

142

McNamara, K, & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates
and eligibility findings. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 181-193.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education
(2nd ed., Rev.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Milliken, Steve. (2003). Case in point: So many changes and so little time-Leadership in
a time of change. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 16(2), 106-108.

Murawski, W. W. & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and
co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing
School Failure, 52(4), 267-277.

National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010). Essential Components of
RTI-A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response
to Intervention.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to
intervention and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 249- 260.

National Research Council. (2002). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind. (2001). Retrieved March 25, 2010 from
http://www.2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html

O’Connor, C. & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality:
Reevaluating the relationship between poverty and special education placement.
Educational Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K. &
Dinkes, R. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., KewalRamani,
A., & Kemp, J. (2008). The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-031).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC.
143

Reeves, D. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. In
D. Reeves, Accountability in action: a blueprint for learning organizations
(pp.185-196). Denver: Advanced Learning Press.

Romero, M. & Lee, Y. (2007). A National portrait of chronic absenteeism in the early
grades. National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved on April 5, 2010 from
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_771.html

Russo, C. J., Osboren, A. G., & Borreca, E. (2005). The 2004 re-authorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Education and the Law, 17(3), 111-
117.
Shaul, M. S., & Ganson, H. C. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The
federal government's role in strengthening accountability for student performance.
Review of Research in Education, 29, 151-165.

Shepherd, K. G. (2006). Supporting all students: The role of school principals in
expanding general education capacity using response to intervention teams. Journal
of Special Education Leadership, 19(2), 30-38.

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. D., Cuadrado, J., &
Chung, C. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and
current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.

Smith, L. J., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D., Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. (1997).
Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early
implementation successes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,8(1), 125-
150.

Springboard Schools. (2006). Springboard schools annual report 2006. Retrieved on
June 11, 2010 from www.SpringboardSchools.org.

Sunderman, G. L. (2000). Implementing title I schoolwide programs in a complex policy
environment: Integrating standards and school reform in the Chicago public
schools. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 361-374.

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving
implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology
Review, 29, 443-461.

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical principals and guidelines
for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, D. C.: DHEW
Publications.

144

Thomas, J. Y. & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at
40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review
of Research in Education, 29, 51-67.

U.S. Department of Education (1997). Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress (1997).
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Research/OSEP97AnlRpt/index.html

U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Twenty-fifth Annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, Vol. 1 2003, : To ensure
the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities. The Journal
for Vocational Special Needs Education, 27(1), 22-46.

U. S. Department of Education. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act, Volume II: Teacher quality under NCLB: Interim report.

U. S. Department of Education. (2008). Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement
of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule. 34 CFR Part 200. Retrieved May14, 2010 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/ 2008-4/102908a.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The
Condition of Education 2006, NCES 2006-071, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
(2002). A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their
Families, Washington, DC.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). No Childe Left Behind Act:
Enhancements in the Department of Education’s Review Process Could Improve
State Academic Assessments (GAO-09-911). Washington, DC.

Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at
Austin. (2005). Implementing the 3-tier reading model: Reducing reading
difficulties for kindergarten through third grade students (2nd ed.). Austin, TX:
Author.

145

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Sipay, E. R. (1996). Toward distinguishing between
cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to
read: The importance of early intervention in diagnosing specific reading
disability. In B. Blachman (Eds.), Foundations of reading acquisition and
dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 347-379). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V. J., Esworthy, C., Grasley, E., Kaisler, G., Mcllvain, D.,
& Stephan, M. (2009). Crossing boundaries and initialing conversations about
RTI: Understanding and applying differentiated classroom instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 63(1), 84-87.

Wiley, T. G. (1996). Literacy and language diversity in sociocultural contexts. Literacy
and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Williams, T. et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Woodward, A. (2001) Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence. Retrieved on March 26, 2010 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2602/is_0002/ai_2602000217/

Wrignt, V. R., Chau, M., & Aratani, Y. (2010). Who are America’s poor children? The
official story. National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved on April 5, 2010
from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_912.pdf

Zettel, J. J. (1977). Public law 42-142: The Education of Al Handicapped Children Act:
An overview of the federal law.
146

APPENDIX A: Administrator Interview Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the
nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to
inspire educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a leader at the school.
a. How long have you been at this school?
b. What is your educational and professional background?
c. What is your role as a leader at this school?

2. What are the strengths at this school?
a. What challenges have you seen at this site?
b. How has the school overcome challenges, made changes, and / or
maintain status quo?

3. What are your goals for student achievement?
a. How do you establish those goals?
b. How do you expect to reach the school vision and goals?
c. How are they communicated?
147

4. Describe the trends and patterns of student performance at your school.
a. For students with special needs?
b. Describe any major evolutions in the student body or in the student
performance in the time you’ve been at this school.

5. Describe the practices and policies at your site that you believe contribute to
your schools’ high student performance?
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last 3-5
years to improve student performance?
1. Specifically for students with special needs?
b. How are new programs initiated?
c. Why are you doing these things? What is the rationale behind the policies
and practices at your site?
d. Were you involved in any decision-making process to implement RTI?
i. When was RTI first implemented? Is it being utilized district wide?
ii. What structures were put in place in the development of RTI?
iii. How has it attributed to the academic success of students?
iv. What impact has it made special ed referrals?
v. How do you feel about the effectiveness of the tiers?
vi. How are instructional methods selected?
vii. Who provides the instruction? Where? How often?
viii. Are there enough resources (PD, materials, staff, documentation)?
Where do school get these resources?
e. What are the challenges facing the implementation of RTI?

6. What strategies do you use to engage all students?
a. What do you do to create a climate to ensure that you engage all students?
b. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
inclusion?
c. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?
i. Can RTI address the needs of all students?
1. Can RTI address the needs of LD and those at risk? How?
2. How does RTI impact students without difficulties?

7. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, which
demonstrate high student performance?
b. How does data-driven decision making contribute to more effective
identification and intervention?
c. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to improve
the school climate and classroom instruction?

148

8. What does professional development look like at your school?
a. When?
b. How?
c. What does collaboration look like?
i. How much time is set aside a week?
ii. Who participates?
iii. What do you do in meetings? How is time structured?
iv. How does collaboration contribute towards RTI implementation?
d. Have you received training in any of these areas (RTI) that has prepared
you for implementing the approaches?
i. Please describe the training.
ii. Who provided the training (site or district)
iii. Has it been enough? Why or why not?

9. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers / students / parents?

10. How do you monitor student progress?
a. Formative
b. Benchmarked
c. Summative
d. Is there ongoing monitoring of RTI implementation?
i. What are the measures used for progress monitoring
(CBM/classroom based assessment, student portfolios,
observation, criterion referenced measures)?
1. Do you think that these measures monitor how students
have responded to instruction is appropriate? Why or why
not?
ii. Is there a way that the school monitors the fidelity of instruction
and interventions?

11. What happens when the students succeed? When they don’t?

12. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
a. Measures of good teaching practices – effective teaching
i. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction to meet the
needs of students?
ii. What is your role in helping teachers provide effective
instruction?
b. Measures of student outcomes – How do you analyze data?
i. All?
ii. Subgroups?
iii. Special needs?

149

c. Peer observation / review / collaborative efforts?
d. Curriculum maps / lesson plans?
e. Coaches?

150

APPENDIX B: Teacher Interview Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the
nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to
inspire educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a leader at the school.
a. How long have you been at this school?
b. What is your educational and professional background?
c. What is your role as a leader at this school?

2. What are the strengths at this school?
a. What challenges have you seen at this site?
b. How has the school overcome challenges, made changes, and / or
maintain status quo?

3. What are your goals for student achievement?
a. How do you establish those goals?
b. How are they communicated?
151

4. Does the school have a school wide plan?
a. Describe the trends and patterns of student performance at your
school.
i. For students with special needs?
ii. Describe any major evolutions in the student body or in the
student performance in the time you’ve been at this school.

5. Describe the practices and policies at your site that you believe contribute to
your schools’ high student performance?
a. Why are you doing these things? What is the rationale behind the
policies and practices at your site?
b. Were you involved in any decision-making process to implement
RTI?
i. When was RTI first implemented? Is it being utilized district
wide?
ii. What structures were put in place in the development of RTI?
iii. How has it attributed to the academic success of students?
iv. What impact has it made special ed referrals?
v. How do you feel about the effectiveness of the tiers?
vi. How are instructional methods selected?
vii. Who provides the instruction? Where? How often?
viii. Are there enough resources (PD, materials, staff,
documentation)? Where do school get these resources?
c. What are the challenges facing the implementation of RTI?

6. What strategies do you use to engage all students?
a. What do you do to create a climate to ensure that you engage all
students?
b. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
inclusion?
c. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in
the school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?
i. Can RTI address the needs of all students?
1. Can RTI address the needs of LD and those at risk?
How?
2. How does RTI impact students without difficulties?

7. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, which
demonstrate high student performance?
b. How does data-driven decision making contribute to more effective
identification and intervention?
152

c. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to
improve the school climate and classroom instruction?

8. What does professional development look like at your school?
a. When?
b. How?
c. What does collaboration look like?
i. How much time is set aside a week?
ii. Who participates?
iii. What do you do in meetings? How is time structured?
iv. How does collaboration contribute towards RTI
implementation?
d. Have you received training in any of these areas (RTI) that has
prepared you for implementing the approaches?
i. Please describe the training.
ii. Who provided the training (site or district)
iii. Has it been enough? Why or why not?

9. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers / students / parents?
a. How does leadership support teachers?
i. Do you meet with administrators, teachers or a leadership
team to discuss specific practices?
ii. What kind of support have you received from leadership and
administration during the implementation of reforms (RTI)?

10. How do you monitor student progress?
a. Formative
b. Benchmarked
c. Summative
d. Is there ongoing monitoring of RTI implementation?
i. What are the measures used for progress monitoring
(CBM/classroom based assessment, student portfolios,
observation, criterion referenced measures)?
1. Do you think that these measures monitor how
students have responded to instruction is appropriate?
Why or why not?
ii. Is there a way that the school monitors the fidelity of
instruction and interventions?

11. What happens when the students succeed? When they don’t?

153

12. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
a. Measures of good teaching practices – effective teaching
b. Measures of student outcomes – How do you analyze data?
i. All?
ii. Subgroups?
iii. Special needs?
c. Peer observation / review / collaborative efforts?
d. Curriculum maps / lesson plans?
e. Coaches?

154

APPENDIX C: Classified Interview Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the
nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to
inspire educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role at the school.
a. How long have you been at this school?
b. How would you describe your role (in school wide decision making?)
c. In what capacity do you work with the students?
a. What kind of training have you had? Who provided it? Is it
ongoing?

2. What are the strengths at this school?
a. What challenges have you seen at this site?
b. How has the school overcome challenges, made changes, and / or
maintain status quo?

155

3. What is the school environment like?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students?
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school
environment?

4. What are the goals for this school?
a. How do you know?

5. How are the needs of all students being met at this school?
a. What is in place to support these students?
b. What is in place to support the staff?

6. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site? Effective
administrator / principal?
a. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job? Administrator /
principal?

7. How do you see teachers and administrators working together?
a. How do you work with teachers and administrators at the school site?

156

157

158

159

160

APPENDIX F: General Site Observations

General Site Observation Protocol

School Name: _________________________________ Date: _____________

Researcher: _____________________________________________________

Time Started: __________ Time Ended: __________ Total Time: _________

Interaction Styles
What are
you
looking
for?
What do you
think? Questions?

Student /
Adult
Behaviors

Peer /
Peer

Groupings
- Students
- Teachers

Cliques

Routines
What are you
looking for?
What do you
think?
Questions?

Student /
Teacher /
Administrator /
Support Staff
Behavior
During Passing
Periods

Lunch / Recess
- Supervision
- Interaction
Among Kids
- Following the
rules

Parent
Communication

161

Physical Environment
What are you
looking for?
What do you think? Questions?
Cleanliness

Symbolic
(Postings)
- Data
- Student
Work
- Goals
- College
Going
Culture
- School Wide
Happenings
- Missions
- Extra-
curricular
Activities
- Sports
- After School
Programs

Recognitions
- Teacher
- Students
- Trophies

Furnishings

Lighting

Graffiti?

Student
Supervision

Dress Code
- Teachers
- Students

Safety
Precautions

School Spirit

162

APPENDIX G: Data Collection

Document Questions the document
answers
Question addressed
School Background and Profile

SARC

School Site Plan

• Class Size
• Number of suspensions
/ expulsions
• California Healthy Kid
Survey Results
• Population Breakdown
(ethnicity, SES, EL’s)
• Supplemental
Programs
• Vision and Mission
Statements
• Teacher Groups
(leadership, advisory,
SSC, etc.)
• Teacher Goals
1

List of Teachers and
Support Staff
• Experience
• Credentials
• Grade Levels
• Years at Current Site

Professional
Development Plan
• Collaboration Plan,
Schedule
2, 3
Daily and Instructional
Schedule / Bell
Schedule
• Number of
Instructional Minutes
2
English Learner’s
Master, technology,
and safe schools plan
• Plan for ELL and safe
campus
2
Agendas & Minutes • School Site Council
• PTA
• Professional
Development
• Grade Level /
Leadership / Staff
Meetings
2, 3,
Lesson Plans 3
Achievement Results
CST and Local
Assessments Data for a
• CST Data
• API, AYP,
1
163

3 year period

Local Benchmarks

SARC

Website: CDE
disaggregated data by
demographics,
subgroups, etc.
Parent / Community Involvement
SARC

School / Parent
Handbook

School Website

Single School Plan
• Parent community /
outreach education
• Community
Partnerships
• Parent Survey results
• Volunteer Hours
• Parent Club
• Parent / Community
Communications
(newsletters, websites)
2, 3
Fiscal Information
Single School Plan

CPM Report
• Categorical Documents
& Resources /
Compliance Findings
2, 3,
Other Information
WASC Action Plan /
Self-Study / Visiting
Team Report

CA Distinguished
School Application

School Wide Behavior
Plan
• Referral process for
Special Ed.
• Distinguished School
Information
• RtI Strategies
• Teacher Evaluation
• WASC
• Discipline Rates
1, 2, 3,

164

APPENDIX H: Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier
School
of
Education

Waite
Phillips
Hall

University
of
Southern
California

Los
Angeles,
CA
90089-‐4038

INFORMATION
SHEET
FOR
NON-‐MEDICAL
RESEARCH

****************************************************************************

CONSENT
TO
PARTICIPATE
IN
RESEARCH

School-Wide
Implementation
of
the
Elements
of
Effective
Classroom

Instruction:
Lessons
From
High-Performing,
High-Poverty
Urban

Schools

School
Staff

You
are
asked
to
participate
in
a
research
study
conducted
by
Vishodana

Thamotharan,
Leila
Gabriel,
Hazel
Giusto,
Vickie
Harvi,
Shannon
Manista,
Rachelle

Snyder,
and
Kathy
Stowe,
Ed.D.,
Principal
Investigator
and
Faculty
Advisor,

from
the

Rossier
School
of
Education
at
the
University
of
Southern
California.
This
study
is

being
completed
as
part
of
a
thematic
dissertation
team
investigating
school-‐wide

implementation
of
effective
classroom
instruction
in
a
high
performing
urban

school.

You
were
selected
as
a
possible
participant
in
this
study
based
on
your

status
as
an
employee
at
a
high
performing
urban
school.
Your
participation
is

voluntary.
You
should
read
the
information
below,
and
ask
questions
about

anything
you
do
not
understand,
before
deciding
whether
or
not
to
participate.

Please
take
as
much
time
as
you
need
to
read
the
information
sheet.
You
may
also

decide
to
discuss
it
with
your
family
or
friends.
You
will
be
given
a
copy
of
this
form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
identify
the
practices
and
strategies
that
lead
to
high

performance
in
students
of
color
in
high
poverty
urban
school
and
how
they
are

implemented
to
support
school-‐wide
effective
classroom
instruction
that
promote

student
learning.

Response
to
the
interview
questions
will
constitute
consent
to
participate
in

this
research
project.

165

PROCEDURES
If
you
volunteer
to
participate
in
this
study,
we
would
ask
you
to
do
the
following

things:

Participate
in
a
recorded
interview,
which
may
take
from
30-‐60
minutes
to

complete.

The
interview
questions
will
focus
on
describing
the
practices
and

policies
at
your
school
site
that
you
believe
contribute
to
your
students’
high

student
performance
practices.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
researcher
is
focusing
on

positive
school
practices
that
helped
make
your
school
successful.

Additionally,
the
investigator
will
conduct
field
observations
on
site,
gather

information
and
record
notes.

The
investigator
will
also
observe
some
classrooms,

faculty
meetings
and
campus
activities.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Any
discomforts
you
may
experience
with
questions
may
be
managed
by
simply
not

answering
these
questions.

You
will
not
be
identified
in
any
part
of
the
interview
by

name.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You
may
not
benefit
from
your
participation
in
this
research
study.

However,
it
is

hoped
that
the
results
may
contribute
to
the
existing
knowledge
base
of
best

practices
in
urban
schools.
These
results
may
also
provide
insight
into
practices
and

strategies
that
may
prove
successful
in
other
schools,
which
in
turn
may
benefit
the

students
at
those
schools..

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You
will
not
receive
payment
for
your
participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any
information
that
is
obtained
in
connection
with
this
study
and
that
can
be

identified
with
you
will
remain
confidential
and
will
be
disclosed
only
with
your

permission
or
as
required
by
law.

When
the
results
of
the
research
are
published
or

discussed
in
conferences
for
educational
purposes,
no
information
will
be
included

that
would
reveal
your
identify.

Audio
recordings
will
be
secured
and
stored
in
the

office
of
the
investigator
and
destroyed
immediately
upon
transcription.

Personal

information,
research
data,
and
related
records
will
be
coded,
stored,
and
secured
in

the
home
of
the
investigator.

Only
the
investigators
will
have
access
to
the
data.
The

data
will
be
stored
for
three
years
after
the
study
has
been
completed
and
then

destroyed,
except
audio-‐tapes
which
will
be
destroyed
immediately.

166

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You
can
choose
whether
to
be
in
this
study
or
not.

If
you
volunteer
to
be
in
this

study,
you
may
withdraw
at
any
time
without
consequences
of
any
kind.

You
may

also
refuse
to
answer
any
questions
you
don’t
want
to
answer
and
still
remain
in
the

study.

The
investigator
may
withdraw
you
from
this
research
if
circumstances
arise

which
warrant
doing
so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You
may
withdraw
your
consent
at
any
time
and
discontinue
participation
without

penalty.

You
are
not
waiving
any
legal
claims,
rights
or
remedies
because
of
your

participation
in
this
research
study.

If
you
have
any
questions
about
your
rights
as

a
study
subject
or
you
would
like
to
speak
with
someone
independent
of
the

research
team
to
obtain
answers
to
questions
about
the
research,
or
in
the
event
the

research
staff
can
not
be
reached,
please
contact
the
University
Park
IRB,
Office
of

the
Vice
Provost
for
Research
Advancement,
Stonier
Hall,
Room
224a,
Los
Angeles,

CA
90089-‐1146,
(213)
821-‐5272
or
upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If
you
have
any
questions
or
concerns
about
the
research,
please
feel
free
to
contact

Dr.
Kathy
Stowe
at
kstowe@usc.edu.

167

APPENDIX I : Weekly Lesson Plan Sample

Week of: November 1 – 5, 2010
Parent Conferences Minimum Days
Teacher C

Strand
and
Objective
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
9:00 – 9:45
(Core)
(45 minutes)
Preparing to
Read

Daily Warm-
Ups

Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics
Prepare to
Read
Unit 3
I Am
Responsible
Week 2
Day 1

Daily Warm-Ups

Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics
Prepare to Read
Unit 3
I Am Responsible
Week 2
Day 2

Daily Warm-Ups
Unit 2 Book 1
Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics
Fluency/Read
Decodable
Unit 3
Week 2
Day 3

Daily Warm-
Ups
Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics
Fluency/Read
Decodable
Unit 3
I Am
Responsible
Week 2
Day 4

Daily Warm-Ups
Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics
Fluency/Decodable
Unit 3
I Am Responsible
Week 2
Day 5

9:45-10:00

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

10:00-10:15
RECESS

10:15 –
11:15 (Core)
(60 minutes)

Reading and
Responding

Read Aloud
Building
Vocabulary
Discuss the
Read Aloud,
Preview the
Unit
Concept/Que
stion Board
Focus
Question

About the Authors,
Build Background,
Preview and
Prepare
Comprehension
Strategies
Discuss the
Selection
Vocab. Review

Reading
Recommendatio
ns
Vocabulary
Review
Comprehension
Skills, Compare
and Contrast
Checking
Comprehension,

Build
Background
Preview and
Prepare
Building
Vocabulary
Visualize

Inquiry
Concept Vocabulary

11:15 –
11:30 (Core)

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

11:30 –
12:10
LUNCH

LUNCH

LUNCH

LUNCH

LUNCH

LUNCH
12:10-12:50
(Core)
(40 minutes)
Language
Arts

Writing Unit
3 Week 2
Day 1
Penmanship
Computers

Writing

Grammar,
Usage, and
Mechanics
Spelling Test

Writing
Listening/Spea
king/Viewing,
Unit 3 Week 2
Day 4

Writing
Penmanship
Grammar, Usage,
and Mechanics
Library 12:40

12:50-1:10

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP
168

WORKSHOP

1:10 – 2:10
(Core)
(60 minutes)
H. M. Math
Unit 3
Chapter 7

Minimum
Week/Confer
ences

Unit 3
Chapter: 8
Lesson: 1

1:45
PM

Unit 3
Chapter: 8
Lesson: 2

1:45
PM

Unit 3
Chapter: 8
Lesson: 3

1:45 PM

Unit 2
Chapter: 8
Lessons: 4/5

1:45 PM

12:40-1:00
Library
Chapter 7
Math Test

1:45 PM

2:10-2:40
(30 minutes)
ELD/Diversit
y/Science/S
ocial
Studies

2:40 – 3:10
(30 minutes)

Language
Arts
Math
Social
Studies
ELD
Specialist:
PE, ART,
Music

Learning Center:
9:30 - 10
2:10 -2:40
2:40-3:10

A.R. Goal:
5 books per
week
each student.

Success
Maker:
Goal: 2 hours a
week each
student in
reading and 2
hours in Math.

169

APPENDIX J: Daily Time Allotment Recommendations

Preparing to Read (Green Strand) 50-60 minutes (skills vary daily)
Phonics and Fluency:
Blending: 15 minutes
Dictation: 10 minutes
Reading Decodables: 10 minutes
Word Knowledge:
Reading the Words and Sentences: 15 minutes
Developing Oral Language: 10 minutes

Reading and Responding (Red Strand) 60 minutes (skills vary daily)
Building Background: 5-10 minutes
Preview and Prepare: 10 minutes
Selection Vocabulary: 10 minutes
First Read: 20-30 minutes
Second Read: 15-20 minutes
Discussing the Selection: 10 minutes
Inquiry/Investigation: 15-25 minutes

Language Arts (Blue Strand) 55-60 minutes (skills vary daily)
Word Analysis/Spelling: 10-15 minutes
Writing Process Strategies: 20-25 minutes
English Language Conventions: 15 minutes

Additional Components:
Workshop: Before or after each strand
Clues, Problems, and Wonderings: 10-15 minutes

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Improving educational outcomes for all students is the primary focus of educational reform movements. In an attempt to minimize the achievement gap in student performance, Response to Intervention (RTI) emphasizes the early identification of struggling students, a multi-tiered intervention model and progress monitoring.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School-wide implementation of systems and structures that lead to increased achievement among students of color: a case study of a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

PDF

Organizational structures and systems in high-performing, high-poverty urban schools: the construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in student achievement

PDF

Reform strategies used by system leaders in education to impact student achievement: a case study

PDF

Overcoming a legacy of low achievement: systems and structures in a high-performing, high-poverty California elementary school

PDF

Leadership, school culture, collaborative practice, and teacher beliefs: A case-study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high performing high poverty school

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Whatever it takes: Systems and structures at a high-performing, high-poverty high school and the implications for special education

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban high school: the relational pattern between student engagement and student achievement in a magnet high school in Los Angeles

PDF

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

PDF

Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? Lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty ubran schools

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools

PDF

Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Gabriel, Leila Ramos (author)

Core Title Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/05/2011

Defense Date 03/07/2011

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

Tag high poverty high achieving school,OAI-PMH Harvest,response to Intervention,school wide reform,Special Education,systems and structures,trends and patterns,urban elementary school

Place Name California (states), Riverside (counties), school districts: Banfield Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email leilargabriel@yahoo.com,lgabriel@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3715

Unique identifier UC187917

Identifier etd-Gabriel-4412 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-448007 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3715 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gabriel-4412.pdf

Dmrecord 448007

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gabriel, Leila Ramos

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu