University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
AN EXAMINATION OF RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION AS A
FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT:
EDUCATORS’ PERSPECTIVES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION

by

Cindy Newman Jacobs

_________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Cindy Newman Jacobs

ii
DEDICATION
To Jeffrey, my love, who told me to live bravely and follow my dreams, I could not
have done this without you. To my parents who have supported me through
everything, your decisions and your love made this possible. Finally to my three
sons, my angels that inspired me, you may now address me as “Dr. Mom”.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Finally, the end has come. This has been a long, hard process that would have been
more challenging without the careful guidance of Dianne Morris and Aba Cassell.
My sincerest gratitude to both of you for helping me through the journey and seeing
it through to the end. To my advisor, Amanda Datnow, who told me that the best
dissertation was a done dissertation, thank-you for the many hours of editing,
revising and feedback that you gave me. You were a wonderful role model and
leader who provided me with the tools to complete this study, achieve my goals and
begin the future. Finally, to David Yaden, thanks for the hours of bantering that
made me realize what it is to ponder the possibilities and the questions of life and
education. Your hours of philosophizing made me understand the nature and traits of
a professor and doctor of philosophy.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION …………………………………………………….. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………… iii
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………. v
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ………………. 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………. 11
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ………………………… 57
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ……… 70
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ……….. 151
REFERENCES ………………………………………………….. 176
APPENDICES …………………………………………………… 200

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: API School Results ………………………………………………… 61
Figure 2: Educators Participating in Study …………………………………… 63
Figure 3: Typology of Educators' Responses ……………………………...… 147
Figure 4: Typology of educators' responses related to whether RTI can be
used as an alternative method for identifying a Learning Disability ………… 148

vi
ABSTRACT
This study investigated educators’ perspectives regarding the implementation
of Response-to-Intervention (RTI), a complex school reform being introduced to
monitor the achievement of all students, in particular, students at-risk for learning
difficulties. The study documented the construction of the RTI reform at two sites to
compare the multiple structures, roles, resources and training that influenced
implementation and the way in which each model developed according to the
particular context. The study also examined educators’ perceived effectiveness of the
reform and the validity of RTI as an alternative approach to identifying Learning
Disabilities.
Qualitative data for this study were collected from interviews, observations
and documents at each school site. The primary sources of data were interviews with
administrators, teachers and specialists involved with RTI implementation. Twenty-
eight educators participated in the study. Data was also collected from observations
of teachers in their Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and from a variety of
documents that contributed to implementation.
Results indicated that while both schools implemented frameworks closely
aligned to guidelines mandated by empirical research and federal policies, the
models of RTI that were constructed varied according to the specific goals, resources
and expertise of the people and the context of the school. Common factors such as
teacher buy-in, collaboration, resources, professional development and leadership
positively influenced implementation at both sites, and then each site identified

vii
factors that had hindered their specific implementation such as lack of funding,
resources, leadership and training.
While educators agreed that RTI could be used as a component of the
procedures used to establish eligibility for Special Education, most educators did not
have a clear understanding of whether RTI could be used as an alternative method
for identifying Learning Disabilities. However, educators agreed that the RTI
framework that provides early identification and intervention for students at-risk for
learning difficulties could not only reduce the number of students being referred to
Special Education but improve the achievement of all students including students
from regular education, English Language Learners, high achieving students and
those with Learning Disabilities (LD).
The study demonstrated the complexity of school-wide reforms and the many
inter-related influences that affect implementation. While large-scale implementation
of RTI is happening at schools across the nation, the empirical basis for
implementation is still growing. This study will contribute to the knowledge
regarding implementation of RTI yet identifies many areas of research in the
framework that require further study.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The growing diversity of the nation’s children has resulted in a wide range of
learning abilities and academic needs not being adequately addressed by the current
school system. Closing the significant gap between the achievement test scores of
children from low-income families, racial minorities, children with disabilities,
English language learners, and the test scores of other children has become a priority.
Large-scale policy initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2004 (NCLB)
(P.L. 107-110) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004 (IDEIA) (P.L.108-446) have been implemented to reduce the achievement gap
and improve academic standards for all students. With an emphasis on the
accountability of student outcomes and sanctions for schools that are unable to
achieve high standards, schools and districts are striving to more effectively address
the needs of all students while adhering to policy guidelines. The goal is for all
students to achieve high standards, and receive an equitable and democratic
education.
Achieving these standards is challenging. Implementing policy reforms based
on improving academic achievement through whole school reforms has proved to be
difficult (Cohen, Fuhrman, & Mosher, 2007; Elmore, 1996; Fullan & Pomfret,
1977). Researchers and program developers have struggled to explain the variability
in implementation and why some sites were able to effectively implement programs
and some were not (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Bodilly, 1996; Desimone, 2002).

2
However, recently researchers have identified certain characteristics of school
reform that now contribute to a broader scientific basis for school improvement
(Fullan, 2007). Policy implementation research has broadened its focus to examine
more in depth the complex factors that may be responsible for effective program
implementation (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002; Desimone, 2002; Honig, 2006).
Much educational reform is supported by empirical research guiding the teaching
and learning processes that contribute to school improvement (Lyon, & Moats, 1997;
Moats, & Foorman, 1997; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Lindamood, Rose, &
Conway, 1999). Under NCLB, schools now have a scientific basis for choosing
instructional programs. Proposed instructional frameworks have used much of this
research to guide the design of new initiatives. Large-scale school reform is focused
on improving educational standards and addressing student achievement in public
schools. This study will explore one of these initiatives being introduced in schools
across the nation.
Response-to-Intervention Framework
Response-to-Intervention (RTI) is a framework for school improvement that
focuses on improving the teaching and learning processes (National Joint Committee
on Learning Disabilities, 2005). RTI is not only thought of as a framework for
addressing early intervention, it is also being viewed as a new way of identifying
Learning Disabilities (LD) (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). It identifies a series of
empirically-based practices that used systematically, will improve the outcomes for
all students including those at-risk for academic failure due to cognitive or

3
experiential factors (Compton, 2003; Gresham, 2002; Donovan & Cross, 2002;
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; Case, Speece, &
Malloy, 2003).
Several components mark the common underpinnings of this framework. RTI
provides: 1) strong instructional methods to prevent difficulties due to poor
instruction; 2) consistent student assessment that drives collaborative decision-
making; and 3) early identification and intervention of learning difficulties in the
classroom or in smaller, more intensive tiers depending on the individual’s needs
(Brown–Chidsey, & Steege, 2005).
Although many of the components of RTI are not new, the organization of
the components within a particular framework has potential for reducing the numbers
of students who are currently underachieving and being identified for Special
Education. Reauthorization of federal mandates such as NCLB, 2004 (P.L. 107-110)
and IDEIA, 2004 (P.L.108-446) have increased the authority of RTI by providing
funding for schools and districts implementing this framework. Large-scale
implementation of RTI has begun without an empirical basis for effective
implementation.
While many research studies have examined the effectiveness of RTI for
identifying and addressing students with learning difficulties using graduate students
and personnel trained by universities (Al Otaiba, & Fuchs, 2005; O’Connor, 2003;
O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005; Vaughn, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Chen,
Pratt, & Denckla, 1996; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006), very few

4
studies have examined the implementation of RTI at actual school sites. Districts and
schools have started the implementation process by making decisions about the
structure and components of the models to fit their own particular environments.
Many of these models are in the early stages of implementation. Research is needed
to examine the scale-up of the RTI initiative in schools to determine features of
effective implementation and whether policy guidelines have helped implement a
framework for school improvement.
Conceptual Approach
The conceptual approach for this dissertation is based on current
implementation research that examines the co-construction of reform through the
complex linkages between and across educational systems (Datnow & Park, 2008).
The inter-related influences between the social players and the context have been
explored in research to develop an integrated and deeper understanding of the roles
and resources supporting reform implementation (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007;
Honig & Hatch, 2004). Examining these levels and interconnections provides a more
comprehensive view of implementation that can guide the adoption of new initiatives
such as RTI.
While implementation has been defined as the actual use of an innovation
and what it consists of in practice (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977), conceptualization and
measurement of the change is important if we are to understand what has changed.
The study will provide an in-depth analysis of the factors that have contributed to the
implementation process by exploring the systems and relationships among the

5
policy, people and contexts involved. This proposal will explore the complexity of
factors at the teacher, school, and district level that shape the implementation of the
RTI framework. The qualitative design will collect data from interviews,
observations and documents to compare the implementation of RTI at two school
sites within different school districts in southern California.
Background of the Problem
Declining reading scores and climbing numbers of students in Special
Education have provided the impetus for much of the research that has changed
education policy over the last few years. Studies indicated that as high as 2.71
million children between the ages of 6 and 17 were diagnosed as Learning Disabled
and of this category, 56% were English Language Learners (U. S. Department of
Education, 2003). The question of whether these high numbers were indicative of
poor quality instruction in the regular classroom, or invalid measures used for the
identification of Learning Disabilities (LD) had prompted much research into
reading processes and learning difficulties.
The National Reading Panel’s (2000) report demonstrated evidence of
“…how critical reading skills should be taught and what instructional materials and
approaches would be most beneficial for students of varying abilities” (NRP, 2000,
p. 1). Although scientific evidence paved the way for schools to provide high quality
instruction to reduce the numbers of students underachieving, many of these
instructional methods were not being used in schools. Reports from the National
Research Council on minority over-representation in special education (Donovan, &

6
Cross, 2002), the Learning Disabilities Summit by the U.S. Office of Special
Education Programs (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002), and the President’s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002), mandated changes now
evident in the reauthorization of NCLB, 2004 (P.L. 107-110) and IDEIA, 2004
(P.L.108-446). Schools must use evidence-based instructional approaches to
eliminate the question of inadequate instruction as a basis for underachievement.
These reports also agreed that the process used for identifying students with
LD was no longer valid and that students that had been failing under the current
system could have received instruction and early intervention to prevent many of
their difficulties. The National Institutes of Child and Human Development
(NICHD) funded rigorous research studies into underlying causes of reading
disabilities (Lovett, & Steinbach, 1997; Lyon, & Moats, 1997; Moats, & Foorman,
1997; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997) and the extent to which
these difficulties could be prevented and improved with specific intervention
methods (Kame’enui, Simmons, Good, & Harn, 2000; Torgesen, Wagner, &
Rashotte, 1997; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Traditional models for identifying learning disabilities have focused on the
measurement of constructs of IQ tests to establish a discrepancy between intelligence
and academic achievement. A large discrepancy signaled the presence of LD.
Students who were able to display a large achievement discrepancy qualified for
special services and/or Special Education. Those that could not establish a significant
discrepancy were unable to qualify for services.

7
Many research studies began to show that IQ was no longer a valid measure
upon which to make a diagnosis of LD due to its inability to reliably distinguish
between those students that were diagnosed with LD and those that were referred to
as low achievers (Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shankweiler, Katz, Lieberman, Fowler,
Francis, Stuebing, & Shaywitz 1994; Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, &
Fletcher, 1996; Siegel, 1997; Stanovich, & Siegel, 1994; Vellutino et al., 1996). The
discrepancy-based formula did not support early intervention, was unable to
distinguish between deficits in the child and poor instruction, and was rarely used to
guide decisions regarding differentiated instruction or remediation in the classroom
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Reschly, 2005).
Although there is not yet consensus on what should replace this model, RTI
has been suggested as a component of or an alternative approach for the
identification of LD (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
While RTI models are being implemented in schools across the nation there
is still skepticism due to the lack of evidence regarding its usefulness for school-wide
implementation (Fuchs, Deschler, & Reschly, 2004; Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, &
Kavale, 2006; Kavale, Holdnack, Mostert, & Schmied, 2003; McBride, Dumont, &
Willis, 2004; Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2003). While school-wide accountability
ensures that quantitative data is being collected to examine student outcomes, there is
little data to inform the structures, training and resources that may contribute to
effective RTI implementation.

8
While RTI is more focused and aligned with current research than traditional
models that have been used extensively for the last thirty years, teachers are now
accountable for providing services for students struggling academically in the
classrooms. Whereas Special Education was primarily responsible for identifying
and addressing the majority of academic difficulties, teachers are now expected to
provide many of these practices within the RTI framework. New developments in
teacher learning have focused on the importance of developing teacher knowledge,
skills and supports needed for implementing these instructional reforms (Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). While research
has acknowledged that teachers are key to the implementation of educational reforms
(Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Sanders & Rivers, 1996), their views have been largely
absent from data regarding implementation of school reform. This study intends to
capitalize on teachers’ capacities to contribute to reform and research efforts. By
examining data from the classroom, school, and district level, this study will
hopefully provide a broad analysis of how RTI has been constructed at each school
site with an emphasis on teachers’ perspectives regarding implementation and
effectiveness of this reform.
Purpose of the Study
NCLB has put tremendous pressure on schools and districts to produce
measurable results. As noted above, while many studies have investigated whether or
not RTI improves student outcomes, research is still limited regarding the conditions
under which this alternative framework can be effectively implemented. “… The

9
essential implementation question becomes not simply what’s implementable and
works, but what is implementable and what works for whom, where, when, and
why?” (Honig, 2006, p. 2). These complex questions require in-depth examination of
how individual sites will implement their models according to specific guidelines
offered by different policy levels. This study will document the construction of the
RTI reform at two sites to examine the structures and resources that have shaped
implementation. The purpose of the study will be to investigate the co-construction
of RTI at each site to determine the factors critical to effective RTI reform.
Research Questions
This qualitative research study aims to explore and compare how RTI is
being implemented in two different school sites. The following overarching question
and sub-questions will guide this research.
Research Question:
How and why do schools implement RTI differently, and how does this
contribute to their implementation results?
Sub-Questions:
a) How does each school’s unique context and their goals for RTI
influence their implementation efforts?
b) What factors have helped or hindered implementation of RTI at each
particular site?
c) How do educators’ perceive the successes and challenges of their RTI
model and its ability to impact students?

10
Significance of the Study
The RTI framework incorporates practices that have the potential to improve
current methods of identifying and addressing a broad spectrum of learning
difficulties. However, abandoning the models that have been in place for the last
thirty years is a big step. Studies must investigate how RTI is being implemented and
begin to provide data that can contribute to determining how effective
implementation can occur in different contexts. This study will investigate educators’
perceptions regarding implementation of the approach and whether they perceive
that it can address the needs of all students. It will also examine the multiple
structures, roles, resources, and training that can aid implementation and contribute
towards developing an empirical basis for RTI implementation.

11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
“Humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how those
discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Reducing inequity is the highest human
achievement.”
(Bill Gates, 2007, Harvard University Graduation).

Introduction
The current Educational reform agenda focuses on reducing inequity so that
all students can acquire the skills that will allow them to be successful. NCLB (2004)
has mandated that all students perform at or above grade level by 2014. Improved
practices must be used on a school-wide basis to reduce the number of students
struggling academically in schools. States are requiring districts and schools to
implement educational reforms aimed specifically at improving the quality of
instruction for all students as well as the means by which students who are struggling
academically are addressed by the system.
The research that has paved the way for RTI to gain credibility as an
alternative approach to identifying and addressing students with learning difficulties
has emphasized the failures resulting from traditional methods of identification and
intervention as well as the validity of certain more contemporary practices that have
an empirical basis. This literature review will examine these different approaches as
well as highlight current research on policy implementation and effective school
reform to provide support for the design and methodology to be used in this study.
1. Traditional methods of identifying students with Learning Disabilities
2. Alternative approaches of assessing learning difficulties

12
3. An examination of RTI literature.
4. Policy implementation research and its implications for RTI.
5. Factors affecting educational reform implementation.
Traditional Methods for Identifying Students with Learning Disabilities
The field of LD has always lacked a coherent theory by which to define the
concept (Lyon, 1996; Hallahan, & Mercer, 2001; Stanovich, 1989). For the last thirty
years the IQ-Achievement discrepancy has determined eligibility for special
education placement (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
2002; Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003). A large discrepancy between the student’s
ability and their poor performance signaled that although the student had normal
range of motor, language, cognitive, social/emotional development and sensory skills
for their age, learning was much harder for them than for their peers. Students that
exhibited this discrepancy were provided with extra support at school. Students who
had many of the same difficulties but did not achieve this wide discrepancy did not
qualify for services. They were referred to as ‘low achievers’ or ‘at risk’ and were
said to have difficulties caused by experiential, cultural, or individual differences
rather than cognitive difficulties (Clay, 1985; Vellutino et al., 1996; Snow, Burns &
Griffin, 1998; Gersten, Baker, Marks, & Smith, 1999).
Determining processing strengths and weaknesses, coupled with unexpected
failure to learn is the core of LD identification (Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Hale,
2005). Modern theory-based measures with established validity are used to measure
these processes and can identify impaired processes that are related to achievement

13
difficulties (Naglieri, & Das, 1997; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001; Wechsler,
2003; Kaufman, & Kaufman, 2004). Researchers have provided strong evidence of
certain core deficits such as phonological processing and rapid naming skills that are
reliable predictors of learning difficulties (Fletcher et al., 1994; Foorman, Francis,
Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Liberman, & Shankweiler, 1985; Stanovich & Siegel,
1994). Intervention studies have offered substantial prognoses for improvement in
these areas and have informed teaching methods and interventions that can prevent
and improve these weaknesses (Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander 2001; Shaywitz,
1996; Vellutino et al, 1996). The assessment of psychological processes and the
determination of a discrepancy in IQ scores has been the marker for the identification
of LD for the last thirty years.
Consensus among certain researchers, however, has focused on the
ineffectiveness of this ‘wait-to-fail’ approach that has left many students struggling
without assistance for years. Researchers have provided data to show that the IQ-
achievement discrepancy, though convenient, is no longer a valid measure upon
which to make a diagnosis of LD (Fletcher, Francis, Shaywitz, Reid-Lyon, Foorman,
Stuebing, & Shaywitz, 1998; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Stuebing, Fletcher, LeDoux,
Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2002; Francis, Fletcher, Stuebing, Reid-Lyon,
Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2005). Many difficulties experienced by students with LD
were also experienced by students that did not qualify for services as their reading
abilities were comparable to their intelligence measures (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes,
Lipsey, and Roberts, 2001; Torgesen, 1997). Siegel (1997) reported that although

14
students with LD had significantly higher IQ scores than a group of poor readers,
these two groups did not differ in their performance on reading, spelling,
phonological processing and on most language and memory tests including
comprehension.
The IQ discrepancy criterion has also received much criticism for the time it
takes to identify a student with LD. Delaying intervention until achievement is so
low that the discrepancy is achieved goes against all the evidence that points to the
necessity of early intervention (Torgesen et al., 2001). By the time a student receives
services, they are usually way behind their peers, show minimum improvement even
with intervention and may never leave special education (Donovan, & Cross, 2002;
Lyon, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Torgesen, Wood, Schulte, & Olson, 2001;
Stanovich, 2000). For many minority students with economic, linguistic and cultural
differences, IQ tests are ridden with conflict and have prevented educators focusing
on other important factors that may have contributed to their difficulties in the
classroom such as exclusionary factors related to culture and experience (Donovan,
& Cross, 2002).
Another criticism of this approach has been the expense of a thorough
evaluation and the lack of instructional and remedial measures that are essential for
improved outcomes. A national survey found that 72% of teachers felt that it took
too long to identify students and provide them with effective intervention and 84%
felt that the identification methods were ineffective and needed to be improved
(National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2002).

15
Alternative Approaches for Assessing Learning Difficulties
Although instruments of IQ have been criticized for their role as the sole
criteria considered for many eligibility decisions, cognitive scientists have over the
years developed many instruments, both valid and reliable in their measurement of
cognitive processes. These are useful for understanding the individual strengths and
weaknesses of specific students and for addressing specific skills. There has been
some consensus and suggestion that perhaps the fairest way to identify students is to
establish levels of proficiency so that students that fall below certain cut-off points
on standardized tests be identified early and receive extra help. However, many
researchers are convinced that too many students have struggled for too long using
assessment instruments that measure and assess individual strengths and weaknesses
at a certain point and then determine the individual’s level of achievement from that
measure (Fletcher, Lyon, Barnes, Stuebing, Francis, & Olson, 2002; Francis et al.,
2005; Stuebing et al., 2002; Fuchs, Deshler, & Reschly, 2004).
Treatment-oriented approaches have received much support as they
incorporate regular monitoring of learning and instruction to assess whether a
treatment is beneficial to the student. This change in approach from “test and treat”
models to “treat and test” is the basis of other alternative approaches including RTI
(Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004).
Treatment-Oriented Approaches
The treatment-oriented approach originally proposed by Fuchs and Fuchs
(1998) focused on maximizing the effectiveness of regular education for all students

16
with individual adaptions within the classroom. At the center of the approach were
the dual discrepancies of rate of student growth and level of achievement. Students
would only be considered for special education when they performed below their
peers in the classroom, displayed a slower rate of learning and exhibited
unresponsiveness to the learning environment (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002).
Treatment oriented models examine underachievement as “failure to thrive” and with
this understanding address the effects of treatments by examining whether students
are responsive or not to instruction. With a treatment validity approach, “…The
value of an eligibility assessment process is judged by its capacity to simultaneously
inform, foster, and document the necessity for and effectiveness of special treatment”
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002, p. 34).
Treatment-oriented models use problem-solving methods combined with
consistent assessment to monitor the effectiveness of a treatment. At the basis of
many of these decisions is the use of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to
inform decision-making (Deno, 1985). CBM evaluates instruction and helps teachers
to make judgments about the effectiveness of instruction. It provides a system for
setting goals, monitoring growth, changing programs and evaluating the effects of
changes. CBM forms the basis for many problem-solving models used to assess pre-
referral interventions and as a method for general and special educators to determine
that learning difficulties are not due to poor instruction. CBM has demonstrated
reliability and validity for providing a framework in which teachers can not only plan
more varied, specific and responsive instruction for individual students, but can

17
increase achievement rates (Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shin, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs,
Hamlett, Phillips, & Bentz, 1994).
Much research has been done using these terms to examine students who
have been identified with LD or who are underachieving. Vellutino and colleagues
(1996) used this approach to treat a group of students with reading problems
identified by their teachers. After treatment, they were further able to identify a
group of ‘difficult to remediate’ students who needed further intervention. The initial
treatment reduced the amount of students that required more specific intervention.
Similar studies (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Metha, 1998; Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Karns, 1995; Case, Speece, & Malloy, 2003) indicate
that a treatment-oriented approach when applied to low-achievers can identify
unresponsive students who might benefit from further intervention within general
education and that by using these methods, teachers can monitor and provide
assistance to students who would not have qualified for services using traditional
methods.
There are, however, critics of these alternative approaches that focus on
putting treatment before testing (Kavale, 2005; NJCLD, 2005; Willis, & Dumont,
2005). Whereas, “ … RTI can tell us both the “what” and “how well” students have
learned, it does not answer the diagnostic question of “why” the student is
experiencing difficulty” (Mather, & Kaufman, 2006, p. 831). Others agree that “ …
If RTI cannot discriminate, how can it classify?” (Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2005, p.
528). RTI may be able to show that a student is underachieving but it will not be able

18
to diagnose the specific Learning Disability. Understanding why a student is
struggling is extremely important for teachers, parents and, in particular, for the
student. Students who understand their weaknesses can be taught strategies and tools
that can help them throughout their future pursuits. RTI may be necessary, but not
sufficient for addressing underachievement (Berninger, 2006).
Rather than an either/or approach, a combination of approaches using
comprehensive psychological assessment and RTI might best serve students (Zach,
2005). Huff (2005) states: “RTI most certainly has many benefits to teachers and
school psychologists alike and the measurement of cognitive processes also appears
to provide valuable information to practitioners, teachers and parents. It seems
possible that both comprehensive psychological assessments and treatment models
can be utilized along a continuum of collecting information about a child that would
culminate in a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that would be of value to
all” (pp. 2-3).
Research is still needed to determine whether RTI methods alone will be
sufficient for diagnosing a student with LD or whether RTI should be used as a
component of the process that determines eligibility for special education.
The Components of an RTI Approach
RTI is a treatment-oriented model that has several common features that
define its basis. Whether called Response-to-Intervention (Vaughn, & Fuchs, 2003),
Treatment Validity model (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002), or Pyramids of
Intervention, there are several components that identify this approach. The core

19
concepts of RTI include the use of scientific-research-based instruction and
intervention for teaching, the measurement of a student’s response to these
instructional methods, and the use of this data to inform instruction and learning
(NJCLD, 2005).
The RTI framework provides a multi-tier model of educational resource
delivery focused on the early intervention and prevention of school difficulties. The
framework has gained validity as an alternative approach to identifying students with
learning disabilities (NCLB, 2004; IDEA, 2004). The different tiers of delivery
represent increasing levels of instructional intensity. The terminology and models
can be specifically tailored to the school environment, but the teaching and learning
practices that are included should all focus on several common processes. 1) High
quality, research-based instruction and intervention in general education focused on
addressing individual students needs. 2) The use of a collaborative approach to
problem solving by school staff during the development, implementation and
monitoring of instruction and intervention. 3) The continuous monitoring of
students’ responses to instruction to inform data-driven decision-making. 4) The use
of systematic documentation that instruction and intervention were implemented
with fidelity and integrity.
The tiers within different models of RTI are the means for narrowing the
focus to smaller groups of students that require more intensive academic intervention
(Fuchs, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Although there is no universal model, most
models combine three tiers of increasingly intense interventions with changes to

20
duration, rate and type of intervention based on progress monitoring and data based
decision-making. The different tiers become more intensive with the use of increased
systematic and explicit instruction, conducting instruction more frequently or for
longer periods, using smaller, more homogenous groups of students as well as
increasing the levels of expertise of the teacher (Vaughn, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs,
2003; Fuch & Fuchs, 2006).
Tier 1 generally provides universal screening for general education students
and ongoing professional development for teachers. Students receive high quality,
research-based instruction with continuous progress monitoring and differentiation in
the classroom. Those students unable to meet pre-established benchmarks are
identified as needing more intensive intervention. Tier 2 provides supplementary
research-based intervention delivered in small groups or one-on-one by teachers or
specialists. These students are frequently monitored to determine how effective the
intervention is and to make modifications as needed. Tier 3 provides still more
intensive interventions to students who have not responded adequately to previous
interventions. Some models will use this tier to provide more intensive and
specialized instruction, while others use non-responsiveness to second tier
intervention as an indicator that a comprehensive evaluation is needed to determine
eligibility for special education and related services. The structure of these tiers as
part of the service delivery model will be tailored to individual contexts.

21
Implementation Strategies
The RTI literature describes two different protocols for implementing these
methods.
Standard Treatment Protocol (STP)
The STP approach emerged from early reading intervention research, where
variability in studies was controlled with the use of one standard treatment (Al
Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Fletcher et al., 1994; Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz,
& Fletcher, 1996; Siegel, 1997; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003;
Vellutino et al., 1996). Using this approach, students needing additional support
received a predetermined research-based intervention implemented for a fixed
duration (e.g. 8-12 weeks) The studies above indicated that more intensive reading
instructional programs delivered to small groups of students or one-on-one,
prevented and remediated reading difficulties for the majority of students. Although
intensity may have differed according to frequency and duration of interventions, the
STP offers schools an economically appealing approach to providing educational
resources to students. Schools using a STP approach must carefully decide on the
interventions to be used, and provide ongoing training and staff development to
ensure fidelity of the intervention.
Problem Solving Approach
The Problem Solving approach was initially implemented in the mid-1980’s
using pre-referral interventions to reduce the problem of over-identification or
inappropriate evaluation. The approach uses a systematic process to identify and

22
address individual’s weaknesses. A series of problem-solving activities are
implemented before students are referred for multidisciplinary evaluations and
special education placement (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Telzrow,
McNamara, & Hollings, 2003). Depending on the individual context, different
problem-solving models are implemented, but most use a series of steps to achieve
their goals: 1) Problem identification that defines the rate, intensity, and duration of
the problem for establishing baseline measures. 2) Analysis of problem and design of
intervention tailored to student’s variables. 3) Implementation and evaluation of
intervention for effectiveness and fidelity and to establish the next step (Fuchs et al.,
2003).
This approach focuses on developing and implementing an intervention
designed for the individual student. If the student does not adequately respond, then
the intervention is modified and response continues to be monitored. This approach
brings increased levels of expertise and instruction to bear upon the identified
student (Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005; Kovaleski et al., 1999; Kovaleski, Tucker, &
Stevens, 1996) and has also shown to reduce the number of students identified and
placed in special education (Tilly, 2003).
Although both strategies use different methods for addressing the individual’s
needs, they both emphasize the importance of a collaborative or a team approach to
identifying and addressing students at-risk for difficulties, the use of increased levels
of intervention for students not responding to instruction, and data based decision

23
making (Fuchs et al., 2003; Kovaleski et al., 1999; Marston, 2005; Telzrow et al.,
2003).
Evidence from Large-Scale Implementation Models
States, schools and districts will be examining models that have been
successful to guide implementation of RTI. The field-based studies discussed below
are examples of implementation models that utilize many RTI principles. Empirical
data from large-scale models have found that these models can reduce the amount of
minority students identified with LD (Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter 2003) and
can change the way in which schools utilize and implement support services (Ikeda,
& Gustafson, 2002). These field studies also provide evidence of factors necessary to
consider during early implementation and assessment of RTI models.
Pennsylvania’s Instructional Support Teams
The statewide implementation of instructional support teams (IST)
introduced by the Pennsylvania Board of Education in 1990, introduced problem-
solving teams of teachers to reduce referrals for special education. Developed
initially around teacher assistance teams, and focused on individual students rather
than on large groups of students, these IST’s brought together well-trained teachers
to examine whole-group instruction using curriculum based measures in a three tier
model of service delivery to: 1) assess current performance to facilitate problem
identification, 2) inform the selection of instructional strategies, and 3) monitor
student progress to determine effectiveness of selected strategies. From 1990-1995,
all 500 school districts in Pennsylvania began an IST in at least one of their

24
elementary schools. Schools using IST referred about a third fewer students for
multidisciplinary evaluations, and were able to serve and maintain a larger number of
students within their general education classes (Hartman, & Fay, 1996). However,
some studies indicated that performance levels increased only when schools used
their IST model to a high degree (Kovaleski, et al., 1999) and that treatment integrity
was critical to implementation. Schools that implemented their interventions with
integrity were found to have strong leadership and ongoing data collection to inform
decision-making.
Minneapolis’ Problem-Solving Model
The implementation of a Problem Solving model by Minneapolis Public
Schools in 1994 was used to guide decisions regarding referral, evaluation and
eligibility decisions for students with learning difficulties (Marston et al., 2003).
With a high incidence of diverse students, speaking many languages and 67% of
students living in poverty, the model was initially implemented as staff members
were concerned about the use of IQ in determining eligibility for special education
and were interested in using formative evaluation procedures to guide instruction as
an alternative to a traditional model. The model focused on individual problem
solving in the general education classroom. The classroom teacher was responsible
for implementing and monitoring instruction and intervention in the classroom. If the
interventions were unsuccessful, a collaborative problem-solving team was
assembled to refine the intervention and strategies to be used in the general education
classroom. The team monitored student progress towards their goals and if there was

25
inadequate progress, the student was referred to Special Education. The final stage
initiated due process procedures and utilized multiple sources of data to help with the
decisions of the multidisciplinary team.
Reschly and Starkweather (1997) concluded that pre-referral interventions
were better under this model, that students received services earlier and that there
was a 75% overlap between students being identified with this model and those
identified with the state’s traditional criteria. However, researchers also warned of
study limitations due to impracticality of control groups, limited time and resources
for staff to analyze data and a focus on student needs rather than best practices
(Marston et al., 2003). In a review of the implementation of this model in
Minneapolis Public Schools, researchers focused on the importance of developing
the roles and responsibilities of all personnel involved in the problem solving model
and ensuring that data was available to those who needed it to ensure valid and
reliable decision-making (Marston, Lau, & Muyskens, 2007).
Ohio’s Intervention-Based Assessment
A statewide sample of schools in Ohio used Intervention-Based Assessment
(IBA), a three-tier model, to assess and evaluate referrals for special education,
eligibility findings and investigate the number of students receiving interventions
outside the general education classroom (Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005).
Multidisciplinary teams were implemented to effectively identify interventions that
would reduce the number of students being evaluated for special education. A study
conducted by McNamara and Hollinger (2003) determined that although IBA

26
addressed a larger number of students using interventions, and reduced the number
of students eligible for special education, there were several factors that negatively
influenced the implementation of interventions in these Ohio schools including,
“…resistance on the part of the general education teachers owing to a lack of skill,
knowledge, or ownership of the intervention process; inadequate resources to
maintain needed interventions in general education class settings; institutional
barriers to flexible intervention design: and persistent belief in special education as a
panacea for children’s school performance problems” (McNamara & Hollinger, p.
185).
Although there was evidence that problem-solving models like this could
achieve delivery of effective intervention in the general education classroom, results
were dependent on the quality and fidelity of instruction (Flugum, & Reschly, 1994;
Telzrow et al., 2000). Ohio has continued to develop the model using regional
networks for collaboration, support and training; a district supported structure for
training and support, as well as communities of practice for key personnel involved
in the problem-solving model. The model also includes a variety of components to
ensure accuracy of implementation including comprehensive professional
development, checklists to plan and evaluation implementation accuracy and
standardized training modules to ensure consistency (Grimes, Kurns, & Tilly, 2006).
Heartland Area Education Agency, Iowa
At the Heartland Educational Agency in Iowa, practitioners developed a
statewide, alternative system for identifying and addressing students experiencing

27
difficulty in the classroom. This four-level problem-solving model is intended to
deliver educational support in a timely manner (Grimes, 2002). Initially, the teacher
met with the parents to resolve any difficulties. If the problem was not resolved,
stage two involved a meeting between the teacher and the school multidisciplinary
team and specialists. Interventions were designed and implemented, student progress
monitored for effectiveness and further action taken based on data. Stage three
entailed Heartland staff working with the teacher, and the final stage offered special
education services and due process protections.
In this model, the student’s response to instruction was compared to the class
performance level and rate of learning. The Heartland model puts an emphasis on
collecting student achievement data to understand the effectiveness of RTI practices
and has developed a systematic method for data-based decision making. This model
focuses on evaluating staff competency in applying problem solving practices and
provides external support for staff members that require professional development.
The increased expertise provided by a collaborative team have shown to be effective
for reducing the number of students underachieving and being referred for special
education (Ikeda, Rahn-Blakeslee, Niebling, Gustafson, Alison, & Stumme, 2007).
Data collected from these large-scale models has shown strong effect sizes
for studies of RTI problem solving practices using either standard protocols or
individualized interventions (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer; 2005; Burns &
Ysseldyke, 2005). Not only were they effective in reducing the number of children
being referred to, as well as placed in, special education, but they also had strong

28
effects for improving student learning. In 2002, 5.7% of students experienced a
learning disability (United States Department of Education, 2002), and within the
field-based models listed above, less than 2% of the population was identified with
LD (Burns et al., 2005). While these models all incorporate many common factors
such as collaborative problem-solving, continuous monitoring of student progress,
implementation of evidence-based interventions and referral to special education if
adequate progress is not shown, many of the results were dependent on the integrity
and fidelity with which the instruction or intervention was applied. There is still a
need to expand the research base to explore specific elements of implementation in
practice and to enlarge on the samples already collected (Burns et al., 2005; Fuchs et
al., 2003).
Many more field based studies of RTI are being supported by the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) with the intention of identifying
best practices for RTI and for gathering examples of exemplary models that can be
recommended for broad adoption.
RTI Intervention Research
The empirical evidence that will be discussed in this section lends support to
the RTI framework in various ways. The studies provide evidence that explicit,
systematic and intensive interventions can help students with LD and those at-risk
make substantial gains in reading. It points to the efficiency of using RTI as a pre-
referral system and the effectiveness of using multi-tiered interventions to improve
student outcomes. The studies extend the efficacy of RTI methods for students with

29
difficulties due to experiential factors such as language difficulties and provide
evidence of the viability of this framework for implementation in schools. However,
more research is needed to determine how schools actually implement RTI and the
factors that influence their implementation efforts.
Using RTI to Identify and Address Students with Reading Difficulties
Reading difficulties continue to impact many classrooms today. Studies
indicate that about 30% of American students are at-risk for reading problems many
of whom do not receive the help they need in the classroom (Al Otaiba & Fuchs,
2006). Although the last decade has provided a broad research base of evidence with
which to address the area of reading difficulties, many students continue to struggle.
Much of the intervention research available examines and builds upon work
that focused on increasing the intensity of standard treatment protocols for students
who are not responding sufficiently to classroom instruction. Nonresponders to even
intensive intervention were considered eligible for a more comprehensive evaluation
and/or special education eligibility (Al Otaiba, & Fuchs, 2005; O’Connor, 2003;
O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005; Vaughn, 2003; Vellutino et al., 1996; Vellutino,
Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006).
The research has focused primarily on intervention studies in kindergarten
through third grade classrooms, as a means of prevention as well as addressing
students struggling to read. In one of the earlier studies that paved the way for
current RTI studies, Vellutino et al. (1996), identified poor readers at the beginning
of first grade. These students received a 30-minute intervention, one-on-one,

30
everyday for the rest of the semester. The tutoring sessions (between 70 and 80)
focused on specific aspects of reading instruction such as phonemic awareness,
decoding, sight-word practice, comprehension strategies and reading fluency. By the
beginning of second grade, those students who scored below the 40
th
percentile
continued to receive tutoring for 8-10 weeks. About two-thirds of the students
returned to the regular classroom, while the remaining third continued to experience
difficulty and were referred to as ‘difficult to remediate.’
Building on this work, Vellutino et al. (2006) continued to develop
intervention research that could “… distinguish between cognitive and
experiential/instructional deficits as primary causes of early and protracted reading
difficulties, and for identifying children at risk for reading difficulties before
exposure to formal reading instruction (p. 157)”. Once again the study utilized a
standard treatment protocol in which students entering kindergarten were identified
at risk for reading difficulties. Half of the group received intervention in a small-
group setting between two and three times a week throughout the year. The control
group received whatever support they were given by their home school. At the
beginning of first grade the students were assessed again. Those that continued to
need help received one-on-one tutoring throughout first grade and the control group
received assistance from their schools. The results indicated that 84% of students
who received intervention only in kindergarten or in kindergarten and first-grade
performed within the average range by the end of third grade. Results corroborate the

31
previous study and suggest that early intervention is a “… useful vehicle for
preventing early and long-term reading difficulties in most at-risk children” (p.157).
Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2006) used research-based instruction and RTI methods
to reduce the amount of students experiencing difficulty in reading. Of the 227
students that received intervention, only 7% in the treatment group were non-
responsive versus 25% that remained nonresponsive in the control group. This
longitudinal study indicated not only that “… a well-implemented, systematic,
explicit intervention can substantially reduce the number of students at risk for
reading problems” but that “… By following our children through third grade, we
confirmed that none of the children who responded initially to this classroom
instruction later developed reading difficulties” (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, p.428). Similar
studies have achieved the same results (Case, Speece, & Malloy, 2003;
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Barnett, 2005). Researchers now have a better
understanding of why many students have difficulties learning to read in the
mainstream classroom and what is necessary to reduce the amount of nonresponders.
Explicit and systematic teaching of phonological awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary and reading comprehension are instrumental in preventing many reading
difficulties. However, there is still a lack of evidence to support which specific
approaches can ensure that no child is left behind and whether teachers are prepared
to effectively implement these instructional strategies (Al Otaiba, & Fuchs, 2006).
Scientific findings must inform both professional development and instructional

32
practices so that schools and teachers can translate these findings and utilize them
effectively in the classroom.
Multi-Tiered Intervention Research
There is much research that has focused on the efficacy of utilizing multi-
tiered interventions now prevalent in RTI for improving student outcomes (Mathes,
Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, Francis, & Schatsschneider, 2005; O’Connor, 2000;
O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2001; Simmons, Kame’enui, Stoolmiller, Coyne,
& Harn, 2003; Vaughn et al., 2003). In a study by O’Connor (2000), kindergartners
who fell into the lowest 40% of the class on an assessment battery were identified as
needing extra help. The classroom teachers received professional development in
phonological awareness and early literacy skills to enable them to differentiate
instruction in the classroom. Students also received one-on-one tutoring throughout
the year. By the end of first grade, the number of students that continued to need
support was only 28% of the original group. In a follow-up study, O’Connor,
Fulmer, Harty, & Bell (2001) implemented a similar study with first graders. In Tier
1, professional development was once again a factor that enabled teachers to
differentiate instruction in the classroom. In Tier 2, the ‘at-risk’ students received
small group instruction for thirty minutes, three times a week. By the end of the
second grade, those that had access to the tiered intervention achieved higher levels
than those who did not receive Tier 2 support.
Simmons et al. (2003) conducted a multi-tiered study that delivered
classroom and small group interventions for at-risk students in kindergarten.

33
Students were placed in one of three different groups that varied in instructional
focus. One group was code-based, the second group combined code and
comprehension activities and the third group received a commercial program. At the
end of the year, the code-based group achieved higher scores in word recognition
than the other two groups. In first grade, students who still showed inadequate
Response-to-Intervention were assigned to either a monitoring group that received
no extra instruction, or a maintenance group that were provided thirty minutes of
instruction. More severely ‘at-risk’ students benefited from the maintenance group,
while those who were less at risk did not seem to require extra assistance. Students
that did not respond very well to kindergarten instruction, needed further
intervention in first grade. In a study with kindergarten students, Vaughn, Linan-
Thompson, & Hickman (2003) provided multi-tiered instruction where classroom
instruction was enhanced with small-group instruction. ‘At-risk’ students were then
assigned to either additional small-group instruction or no additional instruction.
Students who received supplemental instruction significantly outperformed those
students who received only enhanced instruction. Mathes et al. (2005) also
completed a study showing the benefits of first and second level interventions.
Students who were underachieving were assigned to one of two groups. Both groups
received enhanced instruction in the classroom and the second group received
supplemental instruction in small-groups. About 16% of students who did not
receive supplemental instruction did not respond adequately, while only 7% of those
that received supplemental instruction did not respond adequately.

34
In trying to establish how many tiers were needed to achieve acceptable
prevention outcomes and patterns of LD identification, STP and problem solving
studies provided evidence of the efficacy of a three-tier approach to RTI (O’Connor,
2003; Vaughn, 2003; Tilly, 2003). These studies established that by using three-tiers,
about 92% of students responded to interventions and only 6% of the students
receiving Tier 3 support were eligible for LD services. Whereas many studies such
as these report on the effectiveness of first and second level interventions, about 2-
5% of students will still remain at risk for reading difficulties (McMaster, Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Compton, 2005). Unresponsiveness to secondary interventions is an
indicator that further problem solving is needed. Depending on how the model is
implemented, the third level of intervention will require more intensive treatment.
Implementing this third level will need to address questions such as who will deliver
the intervention? What will that intervention be, when, for how long and by whom?
Schools will need to define their methods of delivery. For some models this third
level may require a more comprehensive evaluation of the student and special
education support services, for other models, with more resources, the third level of
intervention might deliver more intensive intervention with a specific focus on
outcomes and curriculum (Fletcher, Denton, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2005).
The Use of RTI with English Language Learners
There is still very little research available to support the appropriate
procedures for identifying and addressing English Language Learners (ELLs) with
learning difficulties. However, several important factors have recently been

35
suggested to guide reading instruction for students whose native language is not
English: 1) Early explicit code-focused instruction; 2) increased opportunities for
vocabulary development through structured talk; 3) develop fluency through
vocabulary and repeated readings in meaningful texts; and 4) use comprehension
strategies with a variety of different texts (Francis, Riviera, Lesaux, Kieffer, &
Rivera, 2006). Various factors such as lack of teacher knowledge, inadequate
measures of language proficiency, and lack of data collection at a national level have
prevented educators from distinguishing between ELL students with difficulties due
to language acquisition and those with learning disabilities, but many intervention
studies that have been effective with English Speakers have also led to stronger
outcomes for ELLs (Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King, & Avalos, 2007).
Certain studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using RTI methods
with this population to prevent and address weaknesses (Chiappe, & Siegel, 2006;
Haager, & Windmueller, 2001; Klinger, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Linan-Thompson,
Vaughn, Prater, & Cirino, 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Cirino, Carlson,
Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan, & Francis, 2006a; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson,
Mathes, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan & Francis, 2006b;
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-
Hagan, Francis, & Fletcher, 2006c).
In the following studies that were part of a longitudinal project on language
and literacy development in ELLs, Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater, & Cirino
(2006), Vaughn et al., (2006a), Vaughn et al. (2006b), and Vaughn et al. (2006c),

36
investigated tiered interventions with first grade ELL students who were in a high
risk category for reading failure. Students were assigned to a treatment or untreated
control group depending on their core language instruction (English or Spanish).
Treatment students received 115 sessions of supplemental reading daily for 50
minutes in small groups. Trained bilingual reading intervention teachers provided
systematic and explicit instruction in oral language and reading. Comparison
students received the school’s intervention program for struggling readers. Posttest
differences were significant for the treatment groups in Spanish and English on
measures of letter-sound identification, phonological awareness, oral language, word
attack, passage comprehension and reading fluency as well as reading and academic
achievement. Although these studies support the use of a tiered approach, the
findings were “… the result of an expensive and intensive intervention implemented
with fidelity” (Linan-Thompson, 2006, p.393). The study did not determine which
components contributed to the significant outcomes or which aspects of the
supplemental instruction and strategies for ELL could have been eliminated (Vaughn
et al., 2006b).
Several other studies have also investigated supplemental instructional
methods that have shown improved outcomes for ELLs (Chiappe & Siegel, 2006;
McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007). However, due to the still small samples,
conclusive evidence is not yet available regarding whether the framework for RTI
will serve as a protective factor and reduce the number of ELL students being
referred to special education, or whether RTI will provide the much needed time,

37
high-quality instruction and opportunities ELL students need to develop their
English language skills. There is, however, agreement that the structure of the RTI
framework that provides intensive small group instruction with high quality whole-
group instruction holds greater promise for these students than the traditional
methods that have been used in the past. Teachers will be key to implementation, as
without the knowledge and preparation to implement this framework, the quality of
instruction may not provide the outcomes that seem possible. More research is
essential to establish larger samples of intervention research with ELLs and to better
explain the learning processes and characteristics of ELL students who struggle with
learning difficulties.
Summary of RTI Research
The majority of research on RTI indicates that if these practices are
implemented with fidelity and integrity, RTI holds great promise for improving
student achievement especially for students that struggle academically. Much of the
RTI research has focused on reading intervention studies in the early grades, and the
methods of delivery and efficacy of instructional methods. The studies have clearly
demonstrated that intensive small group instruction or individual reading
interventions using research-based methods can prevent and remediate many
difficulties and improve reading outcomes for students (Al Otaiba, & Fuchs, 2006;
O’Connor, 2001; Vaughn et al., 2003; Vellutino et al., 2006). These studies have also
shown that RTI methods can be effectively used to address students at-risk due to
experiential factors or ineffective instructional methods and that instruction and

38
assessment are critical to inform decision-making. Although many of these studies
indicate that RTI methods can reduce the number of nonresponders to instruction,
there is still indecision as to how to best identify and address the students who
continue to struggle after initial levels of intervention.
Large field-based models have also shown to reduce the number of students
being referred to Special Education, and have shown to be effective for identifying
problems early on and addressing them in a more effective manner. However, many
of these results depend again on the fidelity of implementation and the capacity of
schools to develop the resources necessary for effective implementation. While many
of these studies have laid the empirical foundations for this initiative there are still
many questions regarding the ability of RTI to determine LD eligibility and its
effectiveness for school-wide improvement.
Further research is still needed at the local level to determine how individual
sites have implemented RTI and whether all students will benefit from this school-
wide reform. The next section of this literature review will examine the methods
used for studying policy implementation and the conceptual development of this
study of implementation of RTI.
Policy Implementation Research
Examining the implementation of educational policies has proved to be
extremely challenging. Not only are the policies in themselves more complex than
before, but the relational factors between the policy, people and places that influence
implementation and practice are extremely varied and complex (Honig, 2006).

39
Initially implementation research focused on top-down models, where
practical implementers followed the direction and guidelines set forth by leaders and
policymakers (Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988; Fullan & Pomfret, 1977). This
technical-rational perspective resulted in many studies that pointed to the failure of
implementers to carry out and comply with policy makers’ designs and could not
offer explanation of the processes involved during implementation. (Fullan &
Pomfret, 1977; Murphy, 1971).
Researchers broadened their views and began to examine the different levels
of influence on implementation incorporating both macro- and micro- influences on
the process of implementation (Berman, 1978; McLaughlin & Berman; 1975). This
more complex perspective on educational policy implementation replaced the
technical-rational perspectives that were used to examine policy implementation
from a top-down perspective. The Rand Change Agent Study (Berman &
McLaughlin,1978; McDonnell & McLaughlin, 1982), and more recent studies
(McLaughlin, 1990; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993) illustrated the importance of
social organization and the way in which local implementers shape school reform.
The term “mutual adaptation” described the many factors exhibiting influences on
implementation and the way in which both educators and policy makers interacted
through vertical and horizontal connections between the policy and the sites of
implementation to construct implementation. Policy implementation began to be
viewed from a bottom-up perspective where implementers interpreted the intentions,
resources and frameworks of the policy through a larger social network.

40
The conceptual view of “mutual adaptation” has been expanded upon in
recent studies to formulate an even broader perspective of implementation that
focuses on the influence of factors from political and social environments effecting
implementation. This co-construction perspective provides a larger view of the
sources of support as well as the structures that shape school reform in different
contexts. It emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between implementers’ actions
and the context within which they are situated (Datnow, 2004, 2005; Datnow,
Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002). The co-construction perspective neither assumes that
policy change occurs from a top-down or bottom-up direction, rather that it is multi-
directional. Change occurs and is constructed by “… continuous interaction among
agents and actors within and between levels of the system” (Datnow & Park, 2008,
p.7).
Using qualitative data to explore the factors contributing to a co-construction
perspective of RTI implementation, this study will highlight not only the complex
dynamics involved in the process of educational change, but also the factors that
have contributed to this change. This design will help facilitate a better
understanding of what it takes to implement a framework such as RTI for districts
and schools, as well as broadening the use of a co-constructive perspective of policy
implementation and it usefulness for qualitative research such as this.
Factors Affecting Educational School Reform Implementation
Although research regarding effective implementation of RTI is still limited,
there is research that focuses on the variation of other whole-school reform efforts

41
that have been scaled-up nationwide (Datnow, 2005; Datnow, & Castellano, 2001;
Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003; Desimone, 2002;
Slavin, 2004). In particular, studies of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) efforts
have provided data that can be used to guide the implementation of an initiative such
as RTI as they share many common components. Both reforms focus on: 1)
improving academic standards in schools; 2) reducing the number of students ‘at-
risk’ for school failure; 3) implementing evidence-based instructional methods; and
4) early identification and intervention of academic difficulties.
Findings from these and other studies will be discussed in relation to
implementation issues facing schools and districts introducing RTI (NJCLD, 2005).
Planning for Reform Initiation
Findings from CSR studies indicate that school reform is more likely to be
more successful if there is a well-planned initial effort to build support among
stakeholders in particular teachers (Datnow, 2000, 2005). Schools that encouraged
teacher participation during the adoption process had greater staff buy-in than
schools where the principal or districts had been pushing school reform. These
studies encourage increased level of teacher involvement and suggest that schools
expand the time during which decisions are made about reforms (Datnow, 2000).
Although most principals reported that they had established a commitment from their
teachers, teachers in this study offered a different perspective. “This was pretty much
forced on us. I mean it was a vote, but we voted until they got their way” (p.362).
The same outcomes were reported across reforms in different schools. Without

42
teacher buy-in, the success of the implementation of the reform was reduced
(Datnow, 2000).
Authors conclude that reforms should be implemented as part of a long-term
plan for the school or district by providing a lengthy initiation process during which
stakeholders can learn more about the reform and what it entails prior to the
adoption. Schools are more likely to match the school reform to the needs of their
particular context if time is spent initially planning for the reform (Stein, Hubbard, &
Mehan, 2002).
Similarly, Slavin (2004) reports that one of the key factors responsible for the
sustainability of Success For All, one CSR model, is the schoolwide buy-in
necessary before adoption occurs. Schools that have a better understanding of the
changes that will occur, make more progress in their implementation once the reform
is initiated (Slavin, & Madden, 1999). Not surprisingly then, in a policy document
entitled, “What’s Working: Decision-Making in Schools” (2007), districts are
advised to lay out training and activities as they relate to RTI, including timelines,
staff allocation, staff roles and responsibilities, as well as funding that will be
provided for RTI. Fuchs & Deshler (2007) report that implementation may be
dependent upon whether practitioners are able to contribute to the decisions made
regarding adoption of RTI.
Selecting Structures
Each RTI model will require structural components that must be clearly
defined for implementation. Structures such as the way in which the service-delivery

43
model is arranged, as well as the collaborative structure of the personnel will provide
the organization for each particular model.
The structure of the service delivery model will define how the tiers of
instruction are implemented. While the RTI framework provides general guidelines
for structuring the tiers, variations may occur depending on the specific model.
Decisions must be made regarding how students will move between tiers, guidelines
for assessing student’s response to instruction and how identification of LD will be
conceptualized. Some schools may use a standard protocol model, while other
models may utilize a more individualized problem-solving model. Some schools
might implement a structure with two tiers of regular education and a third tier
defined as Special Education, or perhaps adopt a more flexible multi-tiered model
where Special Education addresses students who are unresponsive to the three tiers
of intervention. The structure of service delivery will be the backbone of the model
implemented at each site (NJCLD, 2005).
The staff collaborative structures will also be essential to RTI. Policy
implementation research consistently illustrates the impact of collaborative cultures
on school reform (Fullan, & Hargreaves, 1992; McLaughlin, & Talbert, 2001).
Coburn & Stein (2006) examined the influence of communities of practice on
implementation and the specific organizational and social mechanisms that influence
teaching practice and construction of policy at specific sites, while other studies have
examined the complexity of teacher learning and the way in which educators make

44
sense of a policy’s goals during social interactions in the school and classroom
(Spillane, 1998; Spillane, Reiser, & Gomez, 2006).
Many schools have focused on developing collaborative cultures because of
the relationship between these practices and improved student performance (Berry,
Johnson, & Montgomery, 2005; Louis, & Kruse, 1995; Newman, & Wehlage, 1995).
In a study by Hollins, McIntyre, DeBose, Hollins, & Towner (2004), second and
third grade African-American students increased their achievement significantly
when their community of teachers worked closely to develop a focus on student
learning. Similarly, Resnick and Hall (1998) suggest that collaborative learning
communities are necessary so that teachers can engage in classroom coaching,
common meeting times, classroom visitations and conversations about student work
to develop improved practices to achieve higher standards for all students. For RTI,
the collaborative structures will also help determine how data-driven decision
making is implemented.
Training and Professional Development
The goal of reaching high standards for all students requires a focus on
teaching and learning processes. In this age of accountability, teachers are now
responsible for teaching a more diverse population of learners more complex
materials and broader skills than ever before. Federal policies have elevated the
importance of highly qualified teachers by mandating that teachers receive adequate
preparation and training to be able to address the academic needs of all students.
Teachers are expected to have an array of research-based strategies for teaching

45
content, an understanding about what psychological research has revealed about
learning, as well as a knowledge of diverse learning styles and needs that are the
result of individual biological differences, background experience and capacities
(Murphy & Alexander, 2006).
Teacher professionalism has become the focus of much current research and
has examined not only what and how teachers learn but also how they implement
what they have learned (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1991; Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
Shulman & Shulman, 2001). Yet, despite our understanding that teachers are at the
forefront of teaching and learning, many reform efforts have tried to document
change efforts without examining the knowledge, skills and perspectives of the
teachers who have been the primary change agents (Sarason, 1990; Fullan, 1991).
Teachers not only play a key role in the implementation of educational reforms
(Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Sanders & Rivers, 1996), but should be acknowledged as
practical intellectuals, curriculum developers, and generators of knowledge (Feiman-
Nemser, 2001). Teachers should be given the opportunity to provide feedback and
contribute data to the development of school reforms (Fletcher, Lyon, Barnes,
Stuebing, Francis, & Olson, 2002; Kovaleski, 2003).
Professional development is widely recognized as being critical to school
reform efforts (Datnow, Lasky, Stringfield, & Teddlie, 2005; Huberman, & Miles,
1984). Most effective CSR models emphasized the importance of high quality
professional development to school reform (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Suk Yoon, &
Birman, 2002). Similarly, NCLB and IDEA both emphasize the importance of high

46
quality professional development. Effective methods are now evident. Professional
development activities such as looking at students’ work has contributed to change in
practice and improved outcomes for students (Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fennema,
2001; Greenleaf, & Schoebach, 2001; Little, 1999; Wilson, & Sloane, 2000).
Teachers have reported that they are more likely to implement new practices if
professional development takes the form of study groups and teacher networks that
require long term (40-50 hours) collective participation sustained over time (Garet,
Birman, Porter, Desimone, & Herman, 1999). Some studies found that teachers
wanted specific training tailored to their needs. The more specific the training
tailored to the specific context of the school, the more likely it would be that the
program would be implemented effectively (Stringfield et al., 1997; Desimone,
2002) Coaching, mentoring and modeling should all be aspects of high quality
professional development for teachers, but should include administrators and school
leaders who can also benefit from being part of these activities that can contribute to
successful reform (Datnow et al., 2005).
Within an RTI approach, personal and professional learning may take many
forms. Teachers will need to develop an array of new strategies to address different
needs. They will need to engage in problem-solving to examine students’ work and
make decisions about the interventions that might be best for their needs. Teachers
must understand how to use and interpret data to drive the decision-making and
ongoing monitoring of all students. Teachers will need to be well prepared and will
require continuous support during implementation of RTI (Gersten & Dimino, 2006).

47
RTI field studies consistently reported on professional development as being critical
to successful RTI implementation (Marston et al., 2003; O’Connor, Fulmer, & Harty,
2003; Vaughn et al., 2006c) and some specifically focused on how the sharing of
strategies and knowledge was crucial to the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary
team (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Marston, et al., 2003). O’Connor et al. (2003)
reported that Tier 1 of the RTI framework should focus on the professional
development of teachers, aides, specialists and principals, so that all staff have an
understanding of the strategies necessary for reading acquisition. Vaughn et al.
(2006a) reiterated the importance of teacher training by suggesting that without
intensive efforts to train professionals to administer effective interventions, many of
the practices of RTI may be ineffective.
The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) (2004) suggested that
RTI implementation would require a highly trained group of professionals who
receive professional development to ensure fidelity and the support of administrators
who will ensure integrity. Ensuring fidelity and integrity of implementation will be
extremely important for large-scale RTI reform.
Resources
Resources have also been found to be essential for school reform (Datnow,
2005; Fullan, 1991). Many CSR models required a large investment of funding for
the vast array of resources necessary for reform such as professional development,
staffing, time, curriculum and evaluation materials (Datnow et al., 2005). Before a
reform is introduced, funds should be set aside to sustain the reform through any

48
changes that may happen in state, district or site contexts. In the implementation of
many CSR models, funds were supplemented with Title 1 resources (Slavin, 2004).
Regardless of the intervention, stable funding sources are likely to contribute to the
sustainability of a reform and prevent the demise of reforms due to funding problems
(Datnow, 2005).
Inequity in funding and resources has shown to have influenced levels of
implementation for school reform and opportunity for education equity (Cohen,
Moffit, & Goldin, 2007). Studies have shown that teachers and schools require
varied resources including funds, time, materials and assessments to not only
implement reforms, but to ensure changes in practice (Berends, 2000; Bodilly, 1996;
Miles & Huberman, 1984; Odden, 2000). Many new reforms also require an
investment in materials. Some programs may provide materials, but other models
may require the investment of school resources in developing curriculum and
evaluation materials. Investing time, energy and funding in curriculum change is
more likely to increase sustainability of the reform (Slavin, 2004).
Findings about the need for resources are similar in the limited research base
on RTI. Ardoin, Witt, Connell, & Koenig (2005) examined the use of a three tiered
model of RTI and determined that a lack of resources prevented the school from
effectively implementing and evaluating their model of RTI. Although Title I
funding has been earmarked for RTI reform, schools may receive varying amounts of
funding depending on their needs. Implementation of RTI will require funds for new
resources, training, and restructuring, while still having to support many services

49
provided by schools such as speech and language therapy, psychological services
and other supplementary services (NJCLD, 2005). Within an RTI framework,
resources must include adjustments to time, space, materials, documentation, and
staffing.
Administrators will likely need to find the time to schedule team problem-
solving meetings, so that teachers and specialists can examine and develop practices,
make instructional decisions and examine the work of individual students. Teachers
and other staff involved will need the time to make sense of and integrate RTI into
their daily schedules (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).
With the implementation of RTI, there will be a change of roles for teachers,
specialists and administrators (Marston et. al., 2003). Teachers will be expected to
provide a range of interventions within the classroom. Much of this instructional
expertise has been in the hands of the special educators and specialists in the schools
until now. With collaborative practices, these skills may be shared across disciplines
decreasing the divide between general and special education practices by increasing
resources in the regular classroom (Little, 2003; Supovitz, 2002). Administrators and
district personnel can assist teachers by reinforcing expectations of collaborative
teams, making commitments to building this capacity, and providing teachers with
the resources and time to develop these practices (Supovitz, 2002).
Schools must carefully consider the resources necessary for implementation
of RTI before introducing the reform.

50
Leadership Support
Leadership support is another factor crucial to effective implementation of
reforms. Leadership support can come from district and administrative personnel, as
well as from teachers who may assume leadership in the implementation of specific
reforms. Togneri and Anderson (2003) focused on the school districts’ role during
the implementation of reforms and determined that if there was strong support from
the district and superintendent, the reform was more likely to be sustained over time.
Districts can impact reform capacity by developing effective professional
development for teachers and administrators, increasing partnerships that will bring
resources to the schools, developing a shared vision across stakeholders, and using
data-based decision making to identify where resources are most needed to improve.
District support lends authority to any reform that is being introduced and is also
evident in setting priorities and developing guidelines for the curriculum (Desimone,
2002).
Changing contexts at a district level can also have detrimental effects on
school reforms. In a longitudinal study of 13 comprehensive school reform models,
changes to key district personnel resulted in the inability of 6 schools to sustain their
reform efforts (Datnow, 2005). Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez (2003)
conducted a study on the scaling up of research-based practices, and the teachers
who were given support by administrators were higher implementers of these
practices than teachers who felt less supported and were less likely to implement
these practices. In a study by McDougall, Saunders, & Goldberg (2007), more

51
effective reform efforts resulted from a closer working relationship between
administrators and teachers that enabled a focus on academic goals and improved
student achievement. Teachers were provided substitute teachers and coverage in
their classrooms that enabled them to focus on collaborating with each other. They
reported developing increased instructional efficacy and attributions that their
decisions and actions improved student achievement.
Much research has focused on the principal’s role during reform efforts and
how essential it is to both the implementation and sustainability of reform (Datnow,
2005; Datnow, & Castellano, 2001; Datnow et al., 2006; Sebring, & Bryk, 2000).
The principal may assume varied responsibilities and roles during reform efforts
depending on the school context. Strong support from the principal is essential to
maintaining a focus on the reform. In a study by Datnow and Castellano (2001), the
roles of the principals changed during the implementation of reform and they became
involved in the curriculum and instructional planning aspect of the reform. The
authors noted that, “Principals spent more time personally involved in reading
instruction, thereby enhancing their credibility as instructional leaders and supporters
of the reform (Datnow & Castellano, 2001, p.243)”. If principals are proponents of
the reform, their support may change from being managers to being facilitators of the
reform. They must support as well as pressure changes that might be necessary to
achieve the goals of the reform (Fullan, 1993). In a study of reform efforts in
Chicago, Sebring, & Bryk (2000) focused on these two attributes as essential to

52
success. Although principals provided support to their teachers in many ways, they
insisted on observing change in support of these reform efforts.
Teachers in leadership roles also play an important role in the implementation
of reforms (Datnow et al. 2006; McDougall et al. 2007). Distributed leadership
allows teacher leaders to provide instructional support to other teachers, serve as
liaisons between the principal and the classroom, as well as provide administrative
assistance such as planning professional development and overseeing instructional
components of a reform.
So too, leadership will likely be extremely important to the implementation
of RTI. Principals will need to provide time for teachers to engage in professional
development, re-arrange schedules for team meetings, encourage a collaborative
culture as well as provide extra staff support if needed (Marston et al., 2003).
Teacher leaders can assist teachers with the implementation of specific strategies and
methods in the classroom as well as assisting with grade-level meetings and faculty
meetings (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). As the model is implemented, strong
leadership will assist in many areas of change and development.
Building Capacity at the State Level
There have been many innovations over the years that have had the potential
to improve various aspects of the education system, yet have not done so. The ability
to implement and sustain educational reform relies on a complex inter-related system
of continuous support and improvement between educational contexts (Datnow, et

53
al., 2006). Developing the capacities of these components whether state, district or
school level can improve the overall reform effort.
With the implementation of NCLB, states should be able to support, and
coordinate various demands of school reform such as providing professional
development at the state, district and school levels, developing standards and tests
that can measure school and student achievement, restructuring state departments,
developing finance systems to meet new federal policy guidelines and also providing
support to schools that have been sanctioned. In a study by Friedman (1999), the
CSR model chosen for implementation in several Midwestern states was the most
effective fit between state reform goals and schools and districts. The study found
that these reforms were effective because of the careful consideration given to
integrating the CSR with the state systemic reforms. With the heavy burden on states
to achieve high standards, developing internal capacity, as well as linkages to other
educational systems that support schools and districts that need to be improved, is
essential.
In sum, planning for and implementing a reform as complex as RTI will be
challenging. Implementers at all levels will need to carefully plan for
implementation, while continuously monitoring and improving their efforts so that
schools and districts can effectively sustain this educational reform (Fuchs &
Deshler, 2007).

54
Conclusion
This literature review has explored a number of different areas of the field
literature that provide the foundations for this study. While RTI has gained strong
support as a framework that results in the most equitable outcomes for the diverse
student body in public schools today (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007), there are still many
questions regarding its effectiveness for school-wide implementation.
The literature review gave a brief summary of the traditional methods that
have been used for the identification of LD and the reasons why these methods
should be improved or replaced. Alternative approaches for identifying and
addressing learning difficulties were discussed, in particular, the treatment-oriented
approach that forms the foundations for RTI. Implementation strategies were then
discussed and a review given on the large-scale problem-solving models and field-
based studies of RTI that support the effectiveness of these practices for early
intervention and for reducing the number of students referred to special education.
While studies indicate that RTI has shown to be an effective, multi-tiered approach
for addressing all students with reading difficulties, including ELL students, there is
very little data regarding how these practices would be implemented across schools
for broader subjects and ages. Although some of these studies highlight specific
factors such as professional development and fidelity of treatment, few studies have
explored the resources and structures necessary to implement these models in
practice.

55
The literature review then examined policy implementation research and
provided the background for a broader perspective that examined the influence of
multiple levels of the system during implementation. This section of the literature
review outlined the reasons for the development of the conceptual approach for this
study and the support for using a co-construction perspective of implementation. By
exploring the influences of state guidelines, district support, school and classroom
practices, this study will provide a complex examination of how RTI has been
constructed at each school site to try and determine the context specific factors that
have influenced implementation of these models.
The final section of the literature review examined school reform studies that
have provided evidence of several factors that have shown to be important to
consider for implementation of whole school initiatives. The empirical base of
certain factors has grown considerably in the last decade. School-wide initiatives
such as CSR studies have contributed data that emphasize the importance of
preparing for a reform by considering the structures, resources and training necessary
for implementation, as well as the impact of strong leadership and the importance of
building and sustaining the state capacity for reform. These factors are likely to
prove important to other whole-school initiatives such as RTI and will be used as a
guideline to examine during implementation.
Many studies are in the process of examining implementation of RTI in
schools across the nation. With a history of failure of many educational policies and
the ineffectiveness of so many school reforms, the effectiveness of RTI

56
implementation is not yet evident. Hopefully in time, and with the results of many
more studies such as this, data will become available to schools and districts making
decisions about specific and efficacious factors that will contribute to the
implementation. The research will hopefully contribute to effectiveness and
sustainability of RTI models, as well as the viability for scale up.

57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the design of the study, the chosen sample, data
collection procedures and also the method of data analysis. This study aimed to
explore the implementation of the Response-to-Intervention (RTI) framework by two
elementary schools in different school districts in Southern California. Using
qualitative methods, the study examined the way in which implementation was
constructed at each site and compared and contrasted the findings. As evidence was
still needed to examine implementation at the local level (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007;
Hollenbeck, 2007) administrators and teachers from both schools and districts were
asked to provide their perspectives on implementation to try and answer the
following question and sub-questions.
Research Question:
How and why do schools implement RTI differently, and how does this
contribute to their implementation results?
Sub-Questions:
a) How does each school’s unique context and their goals for RTI
influence their implementation efforts?
b) What factors have helped or hindered implementation of RTI at each
particular site?
c) How do educators’ perceive the successes and challenges of their RTI
model and its ability to impact students?

58
Case Study Methodology
This study used a comparative case study design to provide an in-depth
examination of the various factors that have contributed to implementation of RTI at
each specific site. Each case study examined the specific factors influencing
implementation at that particular site. Case study research is often used in qualitative
research so that the researcher can “… uncover the interaction of significant factors
characteristic of the phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, p. 29) with consideration given
to the context and specifics of each case. Case studies are used to answer questions
about a phenomenon within a specific context that need explanations such as “how”
or “why.” Merriam (1998) emphasizes that qualitative case studies provide rich data
for analysis. The specificity of focus makes it an especially good design for
complicated questions, situations, or occurrences that arise from everyday practice.
Yin (2003) provides a strong argument for the use of case studies as a
comprehensive research strategy to guide the logic of a study, the data collection of
the study as well as the data analysis procedures.
Qualitative case study methods have been widely used to study
implementation questions related to school reform (Datnow, 2005; Datnow & Parks,
2006; Slavin, 2004; Spillane, 2004). Many of these studies used comparative case
studies to elicit empirical support for specific aspects of implementation critical for
school improvement including good leadership, professional development and
financial resources.

59
Studies such as this that measure implementation at the local level will begin
to provide an empirical basis for RTI implementation regarding specific factors that
can be generalized and others that are case specific depending on the context. Similar
findings from case studies will increase the generalizability of the findings. Being
able to expand generalizability is an important aspect of qualitative research.
Erickson (1986) found that examining particular cases could contribute knowledge to
a general phenomenon. “… Each instance of a classroom is seen as its own unique
system, which nonetheless displays universal properties of teaching” (Erickson,
p.130). By exploring rich descriptions of a particular case, comparisons can be made
to other cases and studies that have focused on the same qualities.
Studying implementation and practice using case studies has proved to be a
complex undertaking due to large number of variables that can be examined (Gross,
Giacquinta, & Bernsterin, 1971). In this study, implementation refers to the actual
use of an innovation (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977). The study describes what the
innovation consisted of in practice. Therefore, it produces a detailed understanding
of how RTI is being implemented at two particular sites by examining planning for
implementation, the way in which the model is constructed, how the different tiers
function, collection, analysis and monitoring of student data, as well as fidelity of
implementation.
As practitioners who are responsible for implementing the reform, their views
provided insights into factors effecting their implementation as well as perceptions of
it’s effectiveness for identification and intervention. This study used a strategy of

60
naturalistic inquiry for gathering data and descriptive information, so that it could
explore the co-construction of the reform from the implementers’ perspectives. It has
been found that trying to anticipate in advance how implementation is adapted to
local conditions, needs and interests is impossible (Patton, 1987). Therefore
interviews and data that were collected contributed to the development of this case
study.
Research Sample and Population
Researchers have acknowledged the rich source of information that can be
obtained and learned from particular cases or a “…few exemplars of the
phenomenon” (Patton, 1987, p.19). The cases were chosen purposefully. By
examining schools that implemented reforms and improved their outcomes, the
results can be used to predict what structures and resources may contribute to
effective implementation of these reforms. Although these contexts differed, some
common conclusions were reached for both cases.
The sites that were chosen for this study are two of many school sites across
the nation implementing RTI to align themselves with policy guidelines. Both sites
are in Southern California, are fairly small schools with around 550 students each,
and have implemented RTI to address the needs of all students with particular focus
on students at-risk for learning difficulties. Both sites have similar school
populations, have exceeded Academic Performance Indexes (API) state guidelines,
and have shown growth in their Academic Performance Indexes (API) over the past
few years. Although they have many similar characteristics, they seem to have

61
implemented very different structures for implementation. Both sites are given
pseudonyms for this study.

Figure 1: API School Results
2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007
El Paseo 859 866 871
Valley Glen 881 901 889
Source: School Accountability Report Cards

The first site, El Paseo School, is in its second year of RTI implementation. Although
the District in which El Paseo resides serves a fairly affluent community, the
downtown area houses minority families that live in crowded conditions above the
businesses. The school has the highest number of minority students in the district and
has done extensive work to try and define and implement a model that fits within the
context of the district and its schools.
I was able to gain access to this school as I have worked in the district on
previous occasions although never at this particular school site. I adapted a pilot
program for fourth and fifth graders identified at-risk for learning difficulties at one
of their other elementary schools, and was involved in professional development for
teachers and instructional aides. I contacted the Assistant-Superintendent who gave
consent for this study.
At this site, I collected data from the Assistant-Superintendent who
spearheaded the reform in this district, the Director of Special Education, the

62
principal of the school and twelve teachers including two RTI specialists and the
Resource Specialist (RSP). Many of the teachers have been at the school for over ten
years, however, both members of the RTI team have been at the school for less than
a year. Participation was voluntary and only teachers who were willing to be
interviewed were part of the study.
The second site was chosen as a comparative site with similar characteristics
to El Paseo. Valley Glen is a small elementary school that implemented their model
specifically to improve the academic performance of all their students. They have
shown growth in the last few years despite losing resources and have worked
extensively to improve the academic performance of at-risk, special, and regular
education students as well as increasing the capacity of teachers to serve at-risk
students in the general education classroom. Their similar populations and goals
provided a comparative site for exploring factors that have contributed to the
implementation of educational policy, while holding their student population
relatively constant.
Data at this site was collected from the district administrator responsible for
elementary education support, the principal of the school and eleven teachers
including two specialists, the RSP teacher and the SDC teacher. Once again,
participation was voluntary and only those who were willing were interviewed.
Every teacher that volunteered for the study was interviewed and most teachers had
been at the school since its opening five years ago. Although the study only states the
number of years that the educators have been at their present site, most of them have

63
many more years of experience. Both these sites have focused their efforts on
implementing a school-wide innovation that seems to be having good results.

Figure 2: Educators Participating in Study
Educators from El Paseo
Position Code Years at El Paseo
Assistant-Superintendent 39
Director of Special Education 46
Principal 38 4
Resource Specialist 44 5
Reading Intervention Teacher 37 >1
Reading Technician 41 >1
Kindergarten Teacher 33 4
Kindergarten Teacher 40 10
First Grade Teacher 31 11
First Grade Teacher 36 15
First/Second Grade Teacher 34 21
Second Grade Teacher 35 <10
Second Grade Teacher 42 6
Third Grade Teacher 45 19
Fourth Grade Teacher 43 24
Total 15

Educators from Valley Glen
Position Code Years at Valley Glen
District Administrator 20
Principal 21 5
Resource Specialist 29 5
Special Day Class teacher 22 5
Kindergarten Teacher 19 5
Kindergarten Teacher 23 5
First Grade Teacher 18 5
First Grade Teacher 26 4
Second Grade Teacher 17 3
Second Grade Teacher 25 5
Third Grade Teacher 28 5
Third Grade Teacher 27 2
Fourth Grade Teacher 24 3
Total 13

64
Data Collection Procedures
Qualitative data for this study were collected from administrators, teachers
and specialists involved with RTI implementation at both sites. Observations were
done to corroborate evidence from interviews, and documents were examined
pertaining to the planning and implementation of the RTI initiative.
The primary sources of data were interviews with teachers and
administrators. Interviews were chosen as the main source of data as they allow
social interaction and in-depth explanation of specific questions about the
construction of this reform rather than more general questionnaires that may not be
context specific. Administrators at the district level and the school level were
interviewed as well as teachers and specialists from the school site. Each interview
was conducted on site to further explore the contextual nature of their work. Both the
context and the social interaction in qualitative research can contribute to a more
complex explanation of how implementation is constructed (Mason, 2002). Each
interview lasted approximately forty-five minutes and was tape-recorded and
transcribed verbatim. These semi-structured interviews followed an open-ended
format: however, each interview adhered to a protocol of questions pre-determined
to elicit specific information from the interviewees.
The interviews focused on educators’ perceptions of the construction of the
RTI initiative at both the district and site level, with some questions exploring other
aspects of the educational systems including state and federal levels. The protocols
for all these interviews are included in Appendices A, B and C.

65
Observations were conducted during collaborative staff meetings. Two
observations were completed at both schools during the grade level PLC meetings.
Field notes were as detailed as possible including descriptions, direct quotations and
my own comments. The observation protocol (included as Appendix D) recorded the
topic of the discussions taking place during the observation as well as an analysis of
the participants and their purpose.
Document analysis also provided another pertinent source of data.
Documents included formal and informal documents that were used during RTI
implementation. The documents examined at El Paseo included district presentations
for system-wide combining of initiatives, data professional development workshops,
district assessment and intervention calendar, grade-level assessment packages and
teacher-made materials. The documents at Valley Glen included presentations
regarding program implementation, school training, professional development,
assessment instruments, evidence of benchmarks, and IEP procedures.
Data Analysis
These three sources of data were collected analyzed and triangulated to
ensure a more holistic approach to data analyses. In much qualitative research,
analysis begins with the collection of the data (Merriam, 1998; Seidman, 2006). I
analyzed the content to guide the interview questions, as well as anticipate the data
for following interviews. “… without ongoing analysis, the data can be unfocused,
… and overwhelming in sheer volume” (Merriam, 1998, p.163). The twenty-eight

66
interviews collected for this study were fully transcribed, and field notes and
documents organized so that the coding process could begin.
A method of open coding was used to develop the concepts and categories for
analysis. By opening up the data and exploring the ideas and meanings in the text,
the significant concepts and relevant remarks were identified and examined. Open
coding started with defining the concepts that emerged from the data. The actual
coding of the interviews was facilitated by the use of HyperRESEARCH, a
qualitative computer software program. After identifying many concepts and finding
similarities, I began to enter the codes into the software, to categorize certain
concepts together. This categorization reduced the units of data that I was working
with, and allowed sub-categories to develop that further explained and answered
questions about the broader category such as who, what, where, when and how
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The method of reconstructing the data to support each concept is called axial
coding. Axial coding relates categories to subcategories by anchoring the data
according to its properties and dimensions. The properties can be defined as the
attributes of a category and the dimensions represent the “ … location of a property
along a continuum or range” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.117). By specifying these
particular properties and dimensions, patterns will begin to emerge from the data to
give depth to the outcomes. These patterns formed the foundations for the structure
of the findings of the study and began to provide answers to some of the questions of
the study. Initially there were many codes, but some closely related to a theme or

67
common finding and decreased in number. The case study of El Paseo resulted in
sixty-nine (69) codes and Valley Glen resulted in seventy-two (72) final codes. (See
Appendix E. and F. for a listing of codes.)
As the interviews were transcribed and the data coded, the themes that
emerged were made more reliable by the consistency between subjects’ responses,
the observations and the documents. I triangulated the findings from these sources to
establish that the data presented a reliable picture of the questions I had intended to
investigate.
The data analysis findings are presented in a narrative as part of Chapter 4 of
this dissertation. From these findings I will hopefully discuss contributions to
practice and research as well questions that will need to be answered to further this
research.
Ethical Consideration
I have ensured that the data that has been collected for this study was done so
in an ethical manner by following the steps laid out by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) rules and regulations. I obtained the University of Southern California
IRB approval as well as obtaining approval from both schools. All participants were
asked to sign a consent form (Appendix E) that provided a description of the nature
of the study, its intended purpose and also the understanding that participation was
voluntary and that participants were able to withdraw from the study if they chose to.
The consent form outlined any obligations or dangers of the proposed study.
Participants were also assured of the confidentiality of their statements and the

68
benefits that could result from a study such as this. Subjects did not participate in the
study without these disclosures as well as informed consent. The school and all
participants were given pseudonyms to enhance confidentiality.
Limitations
The limitations of this study are the small sample size and limited
generalizability of the findings due to the unique contexts of each case. Although
implementation has been constructed differently at these school sites, there were
common factors that provided evidence to extend the implications of the case.
Despite these limitations, these cases provide some of the initial implementation
studies for RTI using qualitative research. Further research is necessary to
understand more about what structures, resources and training are necessary for
schools to implement RTI effectively. Hopefully other researchers who are interested
in expanding on the data might broaden the sampling done in this study and extend
the findings in the area of RTI implementation.
Researcher’s Subjectivity
My professional pursuits as a teacher, Board Certified Educational Therapist,
and researcher have always focused on understanding and addressing students who
are struggling academically. I was slightly skeptical about the ability of schools to
implement the range of services necessary for a RTI framework. However, I made
sure that my bias did not interfere with this study in any way while conducting the
interviews and analyzing the findings. I was surprised to find that not only did the
findings give me a better understanding of how RTI was implemented in schools to

69
improve the outcomes for student with learning difficulties, and those at-risk for
learning difficulties in the public school system, but also how effectively it is
perceived by educators for addressing the needs of all students.

70
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
To monitor and improve the progress of all students, and to identify and
address the needs of at-risk students and those with learning difficulties efficiently,
there is large-scale implementation of the RTI framework in districts around the
country. In alignment with federal mandates such as NCLB and IDEA, schools are
developing unique models being implemented to achieve their specific goals. The
RTI framework at each site is being adapted to fit with the particular context, to
achieve the policy guidelines and to implement an effective reform.
Chapter Four presents the findings from this comparative case study to
identify the similarities and differences that impact the models. The study explored
educators’ perceptions regarding each school’s implementation efforts and insights
regarding RTI’s effectiveness as a prevention and intervention framework as well as
its potential to be used as an alternative method for identifying LD. While both
schools and districts have implemented their models in compliance with policy
mandates, interviews with district administrators, principals, teachers and specialists
at both schools have provided data to clarify the way in which the reforms have been
constructed at each site and their perceived effectiveness. The data that has been
collected and coded examined the pertinent themes that emerged from the results in
both case studies to answer the following questions:

71
Research Question:
How and why do schools implement RTI differently, and how does this
contribute to their implementation results?
Sub-Questions:
a) How does each school’s unique context and their goals for RTI
influence their implementation efforts?
b) What factors have helped or hindered implementation of RTI at each
particular site?
c) How do educators’ perceive the successes and challenges of their RTI
model and its ability to impact students?
Each of these questions is addressed below, beginning with sub-question “a”
relating to how each school’s context and goals have influenced implementation.
Goals for Implementation
El Paseo and Valley Glen schools are both kindergarten through fifth grade
schools in Southern California that have invested resources in developing and
implementing RTI models to improve the achievement of all their students. Both
models have implemented a three-tiered method of service delivery to address
students at-risk for learning difficulties and have implemented Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) to assist in developing a collaborative culture to increase the
capacity of school personnel and student achievement. Teachers are given time to
meet in their grade level PLC’s each week to reflect on learning and instruction,
make collaborative decisions about instruction, students and outcomes, and to build

72
teacher ownership for all students’ learning. PLC’s are an integral part of both RTI
models.
The schools also address similar populations and both earned the California
Distinguished School Award, with Valley Glen receiving special commendation for
their RTI model. They have shown growth in their Academic Performance Indexes
(API) over the past few years and have exceeded state guidelines (See Chapter 3 for
an overview of their API scores). A brief outline of each school’s goals for
implementation will provide an overview for the way in which these models have
developed in their own contexts.
El Paseo School
The school district in which El Paseo resides began the RTI initiative after it
became clear from data that many students were unable to qualify for special
services and yet were failing in school. The Assistant Superintendent explained,
One piece of data was the number of kids that we had assessed for special
education eligibility who were not eligible. It was very clear that there was a
real need to have systematic interventions in place for student who were not
disabled by federal criteria. … Teachers were expressing frustration with that
as well, about how best to address the needs of students.

In 2005, the district introduced PLCs and all teachers were trained and provided with
time for collective inquiry to establish specifically what content students should learn
and how they would measure the outcomes. From this basis of teacher collaboration,
teachers were able to develop shared visions, values and goals focused on learning.
The RTI initiative grew from the PLC’s. The principal described the process,

73
It became the logical next step out of Professional Learning Communities
because those three basic questions of: what is it we want the students to
learn, how are we going to know they’ve learned it, and then what are we
going to do if they don’t? We had the: what’s the standard, what’s the goal,
how are we going to measure that through these common assessments and so
forth? Then the next logical step, once we got that in place, is what are we
going to do if we don’t? Well RTI fit perfectly into that piece of this is what
we’re going to do when they don’t get it.

The district introduced a pilot program at one of the other elementary schools
spearheaded by the resource specialist, psychologist and local Special Education
Local Plan Area (SELPA). They carefully analyzed data to determine whether RTI
would be a valuable addition. The district administrator added,
After doing the pilot, we just worked with a small group of students and
worked with them to have interventions in place at primarily the strategic
level, then looked at the data from those students. We really analyzed the
amount of time that was spent doing the interventions with the gains that the
students had. It was pretty clear. One of the things I think is really important
is to lead with data when you’re trying to move into something else because I
think that does turn out to be the thing that convinces people that whatever it
is is working or is not working. Sometimes you try something and you know
the data doesn’t really look that good, but in this case we were impressed by
the gains that students made for a fairly small. I mean it was certainly a
commitment on the part of the teachers, but the cost/benefit ratio looked
pretty good.

The following year, RTI was introduced at El Paseo. The model provides three tiers
of interventions: Level I provides universal interventions for 80-90% of students,
level II provides small group support for strategic learners and addresses 5-10% of
students and level III provides intensive individual interventions that address the 1-
5% of students that have not responded to previous interventions. The school district
wanted to ensure that RTI was a general education initiative and decided to call it

74
Response-to-Instruction rather than Response-to-Intervention. The district
administrator remarked,
We made a conscious decision that we were not doing this as a gate keeping
strategy for special education, and we may change at some point in terms of
using the discrepancy model. We made the conscious decision that we
weren’t going to go from that direction to general Ed but we were going to
start in general ed. … We really have seen a reduction in the number of
special ed referrals because we have a whole series of things that we can do
prior to that.

The district provided an RTI team to the school to assist in many areas of
implementation. A large portion of their time is spent working with the lowest
readers in all the grade levels, as well as providing some math support for 4
th
and 5
th

grade. The Reading Intervention teacher remarked, “My role, like the very first thing
on my duties is to design and implement an intervention program here at the school.”
Each grade level was allotted forty-five minutes twice a week during which time
grade level teachers provide universal interventions as part of the RTI time.
Depending on the grade level, RTI has evolved in different ways. Some grades focus
on reading, others on writing and some grades have not yet been able to develop a
grade-level intervention plan. The RTI team supports students from all grade levels
that require more intensive help in small groups and one-on-one. Time and intensity
of the intervention is made on an individual basis.
The district is currently in its 2
nd
year of RTI implementation and has
developed a 3-5 year action plan to redesign and support teaching and learning
environments that are effective, efficient, relevant and durable. The principal
explained,

75
The staff has been so willing and so supportive and open and adaptable to the
idea of improving instruction even though we already have a great school and
good test scores and everything. They’ve been open to the idea of trying to
continually improve and not just always doing things that same way.

The model is defined by several strategies for achieving effective implementation
including monitoring with fidelity using research based instruction; universal
screening and frequent assessment to aid data-based decision making; and problem
solving to ensure early intervention at all levels. Additional details of
implementation at this site are provided later in this chapter.
Valley Glen School
In 2003, the school district within which Valley Glen School resides began
looking for an alternative model to reduce the cost of special education services in
the district and better serve all students. The district administrator commented,
They were looking in the district for how to bring special ed and general ed
together and also bring down ultimately-, do the right thing for kids, but bring
the cost down and keep kids out of special day classes. All of the statistics of
course … you know how many kids actually get out of special education
once they’re in special education? Also the rates of-, you know the progress
of kids when they’re in those special day classes with other special day class
kids, except for the severely handicapped, it hasn’t been shown to be
beneficial.

The comment identifies the motivation behind the goals for implementation from the
administrator’s point of view. They were trying to find a model that would address
the needs of both special and general education students and decided that a fully
inclusive program would not only maintain special education students in the general
education classroom thereby ensuring a higher level of instruction, but would also
reduce the cost of special education. Prompted by the implementation of NCLB and

76
the reauthorization of IDEA the district examined several existing models and
formed a new model to fit their own context by blending together PLCs and RTI.
The goals were to increase the capacity of teachers to serve at-risk students in the
general education classroom and to improve the academic performance of at-risk,
special, and regular education students as well as high achieving students through
differentiated instruction. To do this, the district and school focused on teacher
training. The district administrator again noted,
The first four years of the program we built-, and even this year we did
summer training. We also built in that every year the teachers would make a
commitment to at least one full day of training during the summer. Then as
we brought new schools on we gave them one full day of training all by
themselves and another day of training that we did with the whole group. I
think it’s been really effective as far as we’ve got really well trained teachers
now.

The principal agreed, “We’ve had massive staff development.” The model provides
full inclusion so that all students receive an education that addresses their individual
needs, with special education supports provided within the context of the regular
education classroom. Each grade level has the support of the RTI team that includes
the RSP teacher and the SDC teacher who work with the lowest scaffolding class in
small groups.
All students are assessed during the first week of school and students are
provided differentiated instruction or scaffolding according to their needs for skills
instruction at each grade level. Scaffolding takes place during the “supplementary
skills” portion of the day. Regular education teachers, special education personnel,
instructional aides, and trained volunteers are used to increase the student-teacher

77
ratio during skills instruction. The groups with the greatest needs have fewer students
in them and more support team members are assigned to assist those groups.
Students are frequently assessed and regrouped based on assessment results. One of
the first grade teachers explained,
There are seven first grade teachers and we each have twenty, so hopefully it
will be like that next year, but you know. In reading there are seven different
reading classes. I have the second highest reading class so I have twenty-
three kids in reading instead of twenty…. We do it so that the lowest class
only has ten kids in it.

The lowest reading group has a classroom teacher and two specialists that
collaborate in the classroom. The model provides a three-tiered pyramid of
interventions. Level I is the core curriculum provided by classroom teachers, level II
is grade level specific and supported by the RTI team in smaller groups, and level III
uses more intensive research-based interventions supported by the RTI team in small
groups or one-on-one.
To maintain high fidelity, the school has ensured that instruction is research-
based, systematic, intentional, explicit, robust and delivered as designed. The RSP
teacher commented, “We’re all doing research-based instruction. We’re using
programs that have the data behind it that they’re successful programs. It’s a
program that works and it’s proven by our test scores and the successes that we’ve
had here over the last five years.” Assessment and instruction are recursive and
linked to goals, so that data is reliable, trustworthy and assists in making good
decisions. A first-grade teacher explained,

78
We look at every unit in Open Court, our reading program. At the end of
every unit we move kids and same within math every chapter, so kids get
move around a lot in first grade up or down one or two … like we look at
how they were doing chapter by chapter, unit by unit, and if they’re falling
behind we try to catch them and if they’re really excelling we try to bump
them up.

Finally, ownership provides that there is planning and problem-solving for all
students and programs. The district administrator commented, “In the beginning the
whole philosophy-, we built our guiding principles, you know the idea of ownership
of all the kids; all of that was built from the very beginning.”
The goals developed both of these schools are very closely aligned to the
factors identified by researchers as central to the RTI framework. Both models focus
on improving the capacity of the teaching and learning processes. They have both
implemented PLC’s to develop the capacity of their teachers to serve and have
ownership of all students including those at risk for learning difficulties, because
collaboration ha shown to be an important factor in effective school improvement
initiatives (DuFour, 2004), in building the capacity for student learning (Hollins et
al., 2004; Supovitz, 2002), as well as building shared knowledge, collective
responsibility and continuous teacher learning (Berry et al., 2005; Hammerness,
Darling-Hammond, & Hammerness, 2005). Both RTI models provide three tiers of
intervention, with standard treatment protocols to address tier I and tier II
interventions, and implementing a problem solving approach with the assistance and
expertise of a broader team to address more challenging needs. To assist in
addressing the broad continuum of learning needs, both schools have the support of

79
an RTI team that assists with monitoring and addressing the needs of strategic and
intensive learners who require most intervention and also for collaborating with
grade-level teachers.
To monitor the fidelity of these models, both schools are using strategies that
have been identified as contributing to more effective outcomes. The instructional
methods and programs that are used in these schools are all research-based to prevent
difficulties arising due to poor instruction. Students are continuously assessed to
monitor their responses to instruction and make sure that instruction is efficient and
effective and multidisciplinary data-guided decision-making is connected to the
goals.
While these are similar goals for implementation, the way in which these
models have developed has been very different. The particular contexts are
influenced not only by their goals and strategies but also by other factors. The
following analysis will provide a more thorough explanation of each school’s efforts
in implementing the RTI framework and the way in which the models have
developed according to the context.
Factors Contributing to Implementation
Numerous researchers are contributing data to operationalize the RTI
framework (Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007; Harn, Linan-Thompson, & Roberts,
2008; Kovaleski, 2008; Slavin, 2008). Educators from both sites provided data that
corroborates some earlier research that has been done on large-scale implementation
such as the importance of leadership, professional development and resources, but

80
also reveals evidence of other factors that have contributed to or hindered
implementation. The factors that will be discussed in this section include the
importance of initial planning for implementation, the structure of the model,
training and professional development, resources, leadership and building the
capacity to sustain implementation of RTI.
Initial Planning
Current research acknowledges that reform implementation is more likely to
be successful if an effort is made to ensure that leaders and teachers are invested in
the reform process (Datnow, 2000, 2005). Reforms are more likely to be sustained if
resources are utilized to make sure that teachers and leaders are knowledgeable about
the reform (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002), feel ownership for the change process
(Newman & Wehlage, 1995), and that implementers have emotional support during
the reform process (Schmidt & Datnow, 2005).
Both districts and schools in this case study spent a great deal of time
researching and planning the implementation of their models. By adopting PLC’s,
providing professional development, encouraging teacher decision-making and
making buy-in a priority, these models expended resources during the planning of
the RTI reform.
El Paseo school district aimed to increase the efficiency of the framework by
encouraging teachers to be a vital component in the development of their model. The
leadership tried to make certain that teachers felt implementation had been a bottom-
up collaboration. The district administrator remarked, “… One of the things we were

81
most concerned about is that it had teacher ownership. So we looked at it in terms of
the systems change perspective, that if it were top down it was less likely to be as
effective as if we did it through our Professional Learning Community process.” She
added, “…although the elementary principals were onboard, they were very
cognizant of the fact that they weren’t going to do it unilaterally, that they were
going to really have it emerge for teachers.”
The principal acknowledged that encouraging bottom-up development of the
initiative was good for the culture and encouraged teachers to take ownership of all
students. He said,
Then they start to look at the students as a whole grade level instead of just
their class, which is helpful….. It helped through PLC’s to collaborate and
say the whole second grade is ours. Let’s look at how you’re teaching
successfully in your classroom, or I’m teaching successfully in my classroom
and let’s take the best strategies that we use and use them across the grade
level not just with one classroom.

This suggested that teachers desired to work together to improve implementation of
new programs and realized that the support that they would get from their grade level
PLCs would contribute to better teaching and learning outcomes. In several
interviews, teachers commented on how appreciative they were of the importance
given to the bottom up development of both PLC and RTI initiatives. Once teacher
commented, “…We have a lot of freedom because when we started the PLC
process-, the DuFour thing is that its always from the bottom up, and at a couple of
points it seemed like we were given tasks by the administration and we fought it.
They feel we need to be true to the model and they absolutely were willing to listen

82
to us. They said you’re right, it’s not coming from the bottom up. They’re very
faithful to it. We’re lucky.” Another teacher commented, “… I feel like we were
definitely encouraged to do RTI, and we get to choose what areas we feel we want to
work on which is nice”. Yet another agreed, “We were able to implement it in our
own way or figure out how to work with it in our own way.”
All the grade levels have made decisions on how they would like to
implement RTI and in what areas they would like to implement RTI if any. While
most of the educators in this district agreed that being part of the decision-making
processes regarding RTI implementation had increased their buy-in of the reform,
they also acknowledged that lack of teacher buy-in could definitely hinder the
implementation process. A few remarked, “…I think for those teachers that are not
engaged, it won’t last.” Another remarked, “You know if you have a couple of
teachers who aren’t onboard with it or even within a grade level, it’s not going to
work.” Some grade levels were less willing to participate in this study and one
teacher’s comments indicated that she and her team were still a bit apprehensive
about the model. She commented,
To be honest with you, I did not see the need to really go into RTI because I
thought having time to meet as a team was important. I thought having the
twenty to one was important because I know where my kids are and I know
that if I’m having trouble with something during my PLC I can talk about it
with my team mates and say ah, they’re not getting the grouping, give me
another way. What are you doing? Give me another strategy. Help me with
this. I wasn’t sure that actually exchanging kids would be the best way to do
it and here’s why. When you take them out of the class time in the morning
its disruptive and you know with kids, once you get them focused and in a
good place you really don’t want to stop that, oh time for RTI off we go! …. I
was one of the teachers that was initially very resistant. But, the other grades

83
have seen growth which I think is huge. They’re maintaining their class sizes;
again that’s huge for me. So I’m willing to give it a shot now. Now my
colleagues are-, we’re not quite all on the same page there.

Clearly, there was still some hesitation from teachers and implication in their
responses that there was still a bit of resistance to the RTI reform. While this
particular teacher might be more open to implementing RTI for the following year,
the rest of the team in a PLC might have a different perspective. With a bottom up
development of a reform, the teachers’ decisions and input will contribute to whether
implementation is successful or not. While there are still some hesitant educators at
El Paseo, there was also acknowledgement that the model is still in its early stages
and that in time, the capacity of the reform will increase. The assistant
superintendent commented,
We did some initial training that grade level leadership chairs went to. The
very conscious decision was made that we would train the chairs, the grade
level chairs, as the leaders who would then coach their teams. We decided we
weren’t going to have an expert on campus, …. but we were going to build
the capacity to have experts at every grade level, again keeping in mind that
systems change focus, that that would be a way that we could really sustain
the changes over time.

While the school has spent two years beginning implementation, the model is still
one of constant change and improvement.
Valley Glen began their initial planning very differently. Based on a model
that was originally implemented in another school district, the leadership very
carefully constructed the model that would be implemented in three schools
including Valley Glen. Bearing in mind that the way to implement a reform is with
the collaboration of the implementers, they have encouraged teacher participation in

84
the implementation. The principal who was part of the team that chose the model
commented, “…We decided that it could very likely work here but our demographics
were very different and that it would not be a top down kind of implementation. We
would need to open the school with teachers who decided that they wanted to be
involved in something like this”. She continued:
Yes, teachers have had a lot of input because when we started the leadership
team we were really, it’s a real grass roots effort. We were needing to have
teacher buy-in. They knew what worked and didn’t work with kids. The
leadership team really made decisions about what was going to happen at
their grade level knowing what kids were like at their grade level, knowing
what the needs of the grade level were, knowing the curriculum for the grade
level. The teachers in the leadership team along with our special educators,
worked together with myself to develop what it would look like at a grade
level. So it was definitely a consensus building process.

While the principal decided to foster teacher decision-making, one of the strengths of
the implementation process has been maintaining the fidelity of the program by
ensuring that all teachers would implement programs effectively. The majority of
teachers came to the school because they wanted to be part of the model. One teacher
commented, “…When we came onboard we already knew that they were going to
use this model. If we wanted to be part of it fine and if we didn’t that was fine too,
but we knew upfront if we were coming here that that was going to be expected.”
Another teacher commented, “…You know there’s a certain way to do things and
it’s a pretty micro-managed environment here. I think with the model maybe it has to
be, but definitely we have a principal who doesn’t just stay in her office and not
come in. She’s in everyday making sure, she’s seeing everything’s controlled.”

85
While the initial planning of the model seems to have been a top-down
process, the teachers and administrators agreed that many decisions that have been
made regarding implementation have been made by the teachers. Once again the
principal said, “You know teams make a lot of the decisions. It’s very teacher-
driven. It needs to not be top down. The teachers have to make decisions that work
for them; that they buy into.” Nine of the twelve participants agreed that teacher
decision-making contributed to buy-in of the model, and their decisions had
influenced the structure and development of the model. They have seen very
effective results with the model. Eight teachers vehemently supported the model, as
evidenced by the following quotes:
“It’s a phenomenal program that’s why I’m a huge advocate and I’m
passionate about our program because I’ve seen it work. There’s nowhere else that I
know of where we could have met the needs of that student.”
“I think it’s extremely effective. I mean it’s just amazing that what these kids
do compared to other schools.”
“It’s a fabulous model.”
“So a lot of them are getting service and if they were maybe at a different
school they might not qualify, but we can catch them here a lot more effectively I
think.”
“I think there’s good reason to keep it around. I think that if every district
knew how valuable it is they’d all be doing it.”

86
Yet some teachers agreed that lack of buy-in could hinder the reform process. The
RSP teacher stated, “When you don’t have the buy-in of all the teachers that creates
a whole set of problems that make implementation very, very difficult.”
Both schools have spent time developing the models to fit their particular
context. One important factor during the initial planning stages seems to have been
district and leaders’ priority in cultivating teacher buy-in and making sure that
teachers felt that they had contributed to the model. In monitoring the fidelity of their
model, Valley Glen teachers felt they were well informed about what was expected
in terms of their commitment to the structure and development of the model, and that
they had developed ownership for all students and the model in which they worked.
El Paseo leadership also encouraged buy-in and made teachers feel that they have
been essential to the development of their model. However, there were still teachers
that seemed to question the validity of the reform. Most teachers from El Paseo were
encouraged by the fact that this was a new reform that required more data and time
for development.
While both schools have fostered teacher buy-in and encouraged bottom-up
implementation, the two contexts differed in several important respects. While
Valley Glen had adopted a previously implemented and effective model and was
making minor changes to refine it for their context, El Paseo had started from the
beginning and was developing their model as it was being implemented. The Valley
Glen principal adhered to their strategies for implementation and monitored the
developing model to ensure fidelity to these guidelines. Teachers understood their

87
roles and responsibilities and were all trained to implement instructional programs.
El Paseo, however, had encouraged a loose-tight leadership and left much of the
decision-making and monitoring of fidelity to teachers. Teachers seemed unsure of
their roles with regard to RTI and some were awaiting further training. The results of
the initial planning resulted in the Valley Glen model being organized and efficient
in their implementation efforts, while El Paseo needed further buy-in, organization
and efficiency with their implementation.
Structure of the model
The service delivery structure at both of these sites is different although both
are prevention and intervention models. While El Paseo only recently hired and
restructured key personnel in their RTI team, Valley Glen has an established
structure that was introduced from day one and is very much protected from
disruption and monitored for fidelity. An outline of both structures will illustrate the
differences with the more formalized scheduling of Valley Glen discussed first.
At Valley Glen, the model provides full inclusion for general and special
education students at their own campus, reducing the costs of transportation. All
students receive differentiated instruction in similar ability groupings for reading and
math lessons, with the lowest achieving students receiving support from the RTI
team. Many of these at-risk students receive at least six hours of research-based
intervention weekly usually in groups with 3-5 students to a teacher. At the
beginning of the year, all students are assessed. Baseline data is established with
either the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments in grades 2-5 or using

88
the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessments in K-2.
Data is used to divide students into ability groupings. Groups are fluid, with the at-
risk groups being tested every two weeks and all other students tested every six
weeks to monitor progress and examine response to instruction. Students are also
scaffolded for math and spelling although the RTI team does not assist the classroom
teachers in these areas.
The district originally committed to providing an RTI team that included a
full-time Resource Specialist (RSP), Special Day Class (SDC) teacher and two aides.
The team lost one aide in 2007. The team moves hourly to different grade levels,
supporting the neediest students. The rest of the students receive differentiated
instruction to their ability level with grade level teachers. The tiers of intervention
provide different levels of intervention depending on the needs of the student. The
RTI team and grade level teachers meet to discuss student progress weekly in their
PLC time. Tier II and tier III interventions may provide a double or triple dipping of
core instruction or supplemental instruction five times a week for 50 minutes. The
terminology reflects the enormous amount of intervention that some students are
given and for those that do not need intervention, the time allows for supplemental
activities in groups that address average and high performing students.
The same model is utilized for 1
st
through 4
th
grade. Using collaboration in
each grade level team, the diverse educational needs of each child can be met during
the instructional day and under the umbrella of the regular education program.
Kindergarten has support from the RTI aide for half an hour everyday, but otherwise

89
scaffolding is done within each kindergarten classroom with the help of parents. Low
performing Kindergartners are also identified for an after school program twice a
week. Fifth grade has support for the lowest readers from the RSP teacher and aide,
and scaffolding support is provided for math for an hour a day by the SDC teacher as
this was the need that was identified for 5
th
grade. Between the RSP teacher, SDC
teacher and aide, they address about 150 kids a day.
Even though the model lost an aide last year, the teachers decided to continue
to use scaffolded groups in math. One of the teacher’s remarked,
We decided to scaffold also again for math even though we didn't end up
getting the support this year. Last year it was the same situation that we have
this year with reading where the lowest kids are pulled for intensive small
group, even though that wasn't available to us this year we still decided we
wanted to scaffold. It was the same across all the grade levels because we all
recognize that it's so important to level the kids.

The structure at Valley Glen is closely monitored for fidelity using data and training
to increase the ability of teachers to effectively address all students. Teachers are
required to be trained in all the research-based instructional programs that they use in
class. Collaboration is required by all members of the team to ensure sufficient
support, and data is collected, analyzed and used to inform decision-making on a
continuous basis. The principal said,
I do all of the data for them although periodically I will ask for information
from a grade level. I run the data for them generally. I keep the data for them.
I provide them with the data to try to make it a little bit easier for them ….
because they’re needing to document who’s going where, what changes are
being made.

90
One of the teachers referred to her input by saying, “…. She is a data person who’s
constantly looking at DIBELS, Core-, she’s been a really, really big help.” The
effectiveness of the structure of this model is evident in student outcomes and also
commendations such as the Golden Bell Award that the model won in 2005 as well
as the California Distinguished School award in 2006 with special commendation for
their model.
El Paseo has a different structure for implementing RTI. Most grades
implement RTI time twice a week for forty-five minutes each. The district recently
provided three personnel to assist with implementing RTI including a Reading
Intervention teacher, a Reading Technician and an aide. In additional, the school has
an RSP teacher, an aide and a SDC teacher. With a focus on increasing the capacity
of the district to sustain the implementation, the district administrator commented,
We wanted people who would be the systems piece of this, to support the
staff to use these practices. Their roles were to be multi-fold. They would
assist staff in doing the universal assessments so that it was less intrusive,
they would help with the data collection, getting it all onto spreadsheets and
assisting teachers with that piece. The whole point is to provide that systems
support to teachers and to be able to demonstrate the practices and so again
we’re building everyone’s capacity to be able to use those practices.

Each grade has chosen assessments to monitor the progress of their students during
the year. The district recently implemented their District Literacy Assessment and
Intervention Calendar that lays out the prescribed assessments and calendar for
monitoring student progress three to four times a year or as needed. There is talk of
universally introducing DIBELS that would provide more uniformity for certain
grades.

91
Teachers commented on the need for DIBELS. As one teacher stated, “…My
thing is, if we had diagnostics like DIBELS we wouldn’t be sitting here having a
conversation about gee what are we going to do? We wouldn’t be making it up
because it would be very prescriptive, it would be very sequential, it would be very
measurable and I don’t think that’s where we are”.
Another teacher commented, “…I mean we’re all data driven, so it would be
nice if there was a way to gather more data. I know there are programs out there for
reading and stuff, DIBELS and all that.” Even the Reading Interventionist
commented on the need for a more unified way of collecting data, “…I feel like once
we get the DIBELS we can make better decisions. I think we’ve just gotta get some
good data to look at.”
The current structure was implemented in February 2008, and there is
ongoing improvement of various aspects of this model. Decisions are being made
about new assessments, new instructional programs, ongoing professional
development and refining the structure of the model. Teacher’s commented, “I think
it’s starting to help. Last year we were still working on how to implement it and
figure it out but I think now it is. Its getting there.” The Resource teacher at the
school added,
Last year there was a lot of talk and we went to a lot of conferences, was it
two years ago? Well last year and the year before. Maybe it was the year
before-, two years ago that we started all of that and then last year I think the
first grade team sort of started getting onboard with it and then this year now
more teams are getting onboard with it.

92
The current structure is different depending on the grade level. In kindergarten there
is support from both the RTI staff and the aides in kindergarten. In first grade RTI
time is twice a week for forty-five minutes, the lowest groups go to the reading
technician, and there is some additional time that groups were sent to the RTI time
but everyone seemed quite unclear as the exact structure. One of the first grade
teachers commented,
In first grade we can’t do RTI right away because they can’t do anything. We
have to build those skills and we have to build to a point where if we’re doing
reading we have to have some readers because otherwise all we’re doing is
remediating and we’re not remediating because they haven’t learned it yet.
As you get higher up in the grades you can pick out the remediation right
away. In the beginning of first grade they’re just coming to us from
kindergarten, some not from kindergarten because kindergarten is not
mandatory in California. So our scope and our spectrum is large.

The RTI team seemed frustrated by the delay and commented,
First grade waffled back and forth and now seems to have started but had it
two weeks ago but we haven’t had it since. So there’s a lot of inconsistency
with it and I think part of it is that each teacher, and first grade in particular is
a big grade, there are five and a half first grades. There are four solid firsts
and a combo and they’re all just in a different place and they all teach a little
differently and I think they all had a very different concept of what their RTI
should be. It took them a little bit of compromising to get it to where they
wanted to be. By the time they figured it out, their initial groups, the kids had
grown and changed and so they felt they had to change. That should be
secondary. You should be able to move a kid pretty easily. I think it should
be done more effectively. I think training, I don’t know how much training
the teachers have had, but just from the way things seem; not a lot.

This comment describes how inconsistent and unstructured even the most organized
classroom teams still are with regards to RTI time. While certain classroom teams
may have improved the structure of their RTI interventions in their second year,

93
there are clearly still some difficulties that need to be addressed and teachers seem to
need more support with implementation of the framework in their grade level teams.
The second grade decided to focus on writing during their RTI time. The
lowest readers are sent to the RTI team in the morning and the rest of the 2
nd
grade
are scaffolded for writing. Last year they had focused on reading but from their
scores and the fact that second grade has to do a state writing test, they decided to
focus on writing this year. The lowest readers who are sent to the RTI team for
support in reading, miss out on the writing.
In third grade, there was not much teacher buy-in and that as well as the fact
that two of the third grade classes are located on the other side of the campus has
resulted in some of the third grades doing RTI for writing and others not
participating yet. Their two lowest groups of readers are sent to the RTI team for
reading intervention every day.
For fourth grade, RTI is only implemented once a week for 45 minutes. The
lowest readers spend once a week with the RTI team and the team offers math
intervention once a week while the rest of the fourth grade teachers do rotations. The
classrooms rotate to different teachers who focus on instruction in areas that they feel
their strengths are in. There is math support for fourth graders once a week after
school with a credentialed parent.
Fifth grade teachers did not volunteer for the study. From other teacher’s
comments it seemed that 5
th
grade teachers used rotations for teaching certain subject
matter but did not scaffold the grade according to ability. The 5
th
grade received

94
support from the RTI team for math. The structure of the RTI model at El Paseo is
still very much in the developmental stages. The new Reading Interventionist teacher
remarked,
My role, like the very first thing on my duties is to design and implement an
intervention program here at this school. The only intervention program they
had was what they have in the Open Court materials. The students, who need
more help, the tier two intervention, like a supplemental intervention: we
didn’t have any of those which the other school did. I didn’t have that so
that’s what I started doing; research and trying to figure out which programs
would work best for us. I purchased the programs and I would say it took me
a while but by the end of December I started getting my feet wet and started
working with groups and all that stuff. I’m trying to figure out what works
best for the student at each grade level, what their needs are.

The RTI team has been working extremely hard to implement the Tier II and Tier III
levels of structure. The RTI team would consistently assess at-risk students, and
classroom groups would be assessed every six to eight weeks to ensure that they
were responding to instruction and correctly placed into groups. While classroom
scaffolding groups and most strategic groups that are assisted by the RTI team
receive Standard Treatment Protocols, there are a few intensive students and small
groups that receive programs specifically focused on their individual needs.
The RSP teacher, who had newly returned from maternity leave, commented
on the changing structure of the Special Education Department. She acknowledged,
What we’re trying to do too is we’re probably going to even just change how
my program looks, but we’re not quite there yet. To be honest I have a
meeting with my director of special ed. at 1:30 today to talk about this …
How do we under the RTI model, how do we help the kids who are reading
four years below grade level or the kids who just sort of need that extra - .

95
While most teachers were encouraged by the development of the structure at El
Paseo, there were comments that pointed to inconsistent implementation and
knowledge of other grade level models for implementation. One of the grade level
teachers commented,
So RTI right now, our team is really doing it. First grade isn’t really doing it.
Third grade can’t do it. Fourth and fifth grade aren’t doing it. They think
they’re doing it because they’ve been rotating by ability grouping because it’s
easier to just do the thing because they’re got a lot of kids. They haven’t
changed much since-, and they did that before we actually had PLC or RTIs
because it was kind of like something they could do with that age group.
They don’t really get it.

While research has indicated the importance of having a clearly defined structure, the
data illustrates the results of a model that is lacking this structure. While Valley Glen
had clear structures for all the grade level teams, El Paseo was still in the
experimental phase with different grade levels trying out their own structure for
implementation. From teachers’ comments it became clear that without further
support, the goals for early intervention and addressing students at-risk cannot be
consistently addressed in all grade level teams at El Paseo.
Teacher’s comments indicated the lack of a comprehensive strategy for the
structure of grade level implementation. Further support, guidance and training are
needed to develop the El Paseo RTI structure more consistently.
Collaborative Structures and PLCs
While there was much inconsistency with grade level implementation, there
was a common critical element that supported the structure of both models – the
contributions of their collaborative PLC’s. This particular structural element will be

96
discussed here and then related to teacher professional development which is
described below. Ten of the educators from El Paseo and eleven of the educators
from Valley Glen focused on the importance of teacher collaboration in the structure
of RTI. While all teachers are given an hour a week to collaborate in their PLC’s,
most teachers agreed that collaboration took place at any opportunity whether it was
at recess, before school, after school or during their prep times. Some examples
pointed to the importance of making decisions about curriculum and instruction for
the whole grade, while other teachers focused on the importance of having more than
one educator involved in decision making as a result of looking at student data.
The principal at El Paseo laid out how he thought that PLC’s should support
implementation,
Well the structure of PLC is in grade level teams. Then they start to look at
the students as a whole grade level instead of just their class, which is very
helpful. Let’s look at how you’re teaching successfully in your classroom, or
I’m teaching successfully in my classroom and let’s take the best strategies
that we use and use them across the grade level not just in one classroom.
PLC’s also make it simpler for the at-risk students I think, fitting in with RTI.
It’s the same thing; my kids weren’t really getting place value. What did you
do to teach place value so well because none of your kids are falling behind.
So that teachers can then develop a lesson to teach all of the kids in that grade
level or the at- risk kids in that grade level how to learn place value.

Teachers at El Paseo also enlarged on the role of collaboration in the structure of RTI
implementation. One teacher stated, “…I get the feeling that our school wants us to
use PLC’s like a mini SST [Student Study Team] type of thing; first work amongst
your colleagues, brainstorm ideas, try them and see how that works.” Another
teacher commented that, “..So our PLC’s just a continuation of ok where are we on

97
our assessments and have we started the second trimester assessments yet and how
are the RTI groups going, what do we have Marie working on, what should we have
her working on this week? So we’re collaborating all the time, so we’re always using
their data to decide what to spend more or less time on.” Most teachers agreed that
collaborative time was essential for looking at student work and data, as well as
planning curriculum and developing instructional practices.
One of the RTI team members at El Paseo focused on the importance of
collaborating with one of the RTI members at a different elementary school in the
district. “There are times when I’ll PLC with my counterpart at Sea View. She’ll
come in and like I need to talk to her about this program and she has it already. She
got it a week ago. But just so we can talk about maybe how we can make this work,
we’re talking about having exit criteria for our programs. We’re just trying to make
sure we’re on the same page with everything.”
The educators at Valley Glen were just as adamant about the importance of
collaboration for effective implementation. The principal at Valley Glen stated,
It’s all about collaboration. Teachers have to collaborate with the whole Rick
DuFour philosophy, the whole PLC philosophy that the group is working
together towards the benefit of a child is better than one teacher trying to
figure out how to make things better for that child. Teachers collaborate
about team planning, they collaborate about children, they collaborate about
what assessments to use, when to use the, you know everything. They
collaborate about everything. So that is a cumbersome piece but essential-, is
teaching collaboration.

One of the teachers from Valley Glen focused on the importance of planning and
differentiating the curriculum using their teams. She said, “…You know we teach

98
together. We teach the same curriculum but also about the same time and most of us
have the same lessons, varied of course depending on what the students needs are,
but we’re generally doing about the same thing at the same time. We can ask hey
how did this go today? Were you able to, or how did you tweak this lesson to be able
to help or how did you modify it to challenge some students who might need some
challenging? There’s a lot of support just across our grade as well.”
Another teacher focused on discussing students,
We discuss the kids; if we see anyone who needs to move groups in either
direction and talk about any issues we’re having since we share all the kids.
We get to know over a hundred kids and so we can talk about them all by
name and we can share information about what they were doing in our class
today. That part’s nice.

Not only did teachers feel that the collaboration extended across the grade levels, but
also that collaboration extended towards leadership and other personnel such as the
RTI support team.
Both RTI support teams commented on the importance of this collaboration,
We get together with the general ed. teams every Thursday. Both of the
special educators go to every single grade level every week and we
collaborate. We’re doing planning, we’re talking about assessment and we’re
talking about the needs of the kids. That happens every single Thursday
afternoon. Without that collaboration this program would not be a success.
That’s the glue that holds us all together; talking about the needs of the kids
and based on the data.

Educators identified many ways in which collaboration had helped with RTI
implementation more specifically being given the time to focus on curriculum and
instruction in particular modifying and differentiating instruction depending on the

99
group. They also identified collaborating to make decisions about specific students
such as,
We discuss the kids; if we see anyone who needs to move groups in either
direction and talk about any behavior issues we’re having since we share all
the kids. We get to know over a hundred kids and so we can talk about them
all by name and we can share information about what they were doing in our
class today. That part’s nice.

The collaborative structures of both these models clearly contributed to
implementation of RTI. Ongoing professional development has been identified as an
important factor in school reform and for a complex framework such as RTI, having
the support and collaboration that PLCs provide has helped in many of the decision-
making areas involved in RTI. While this collaborative element has contributed to
implementation, there are also other aspects of training and professional
development that have contributed to implementation.
Staff Training Opportunities
While the importance of collaboration and the structure of PLC’s was
supported by the vast majority of the educators as being an important influence for
effective implementation, there were other aspects of teacher training that teachers
referred to that had contributed and hindered implementation.
The area of teacher training is a very complex one as there are so many
different ways and topics which teachers can be trained in. The El Paseo district
partnered in training with outside districts and universities for deepening
understanding of the RTI reform. They initially formed a partnership with a school a
couple of years ahead in terms of implementation and teacher leadership members

100
went to the school to have a look at RTI being used in the classroom. While El Paseo
had more expertise in behavioral intervention, the other school had more expertise in
academic interventions. One of the teachers commented,
They did training for us and we did training for them and it was a nice
partnership, what really helped – I think in fact a very pivotal thing was that
our teachers could go to their schools and see it in action – rather than a train
and hope approach, that you have an expert come in, train the staff, the
expert leaves and the people have to implement without that ongoing
coaching or ability to go view a model and those kind of things.

Unfortunately a limited number of teachers were able to go this and other RTI
trainings and several teachers at El Paseo commented on their lack of training and
that of members of their grade level teams. The school policy is that the leadership
team receives most of the training and then takes it back to the rest of the grade level
teachers. The grade level representative can change at the beginning of each year, so
some teachers received the training and others did not. Some comments included,
“…I feel fortunate because I was able to go, but I know maybe two out of the four
people on our team have not been able to go. So it’s hard”. Another teacher
commented, “…Yeah we were given quite a bit of training. I was the grade level
chair so I think I had more training than the other two grade members”. The RTI
team that has been newly implemented also expressed a need for further training
both for themselves and for the teachers, “… I don’t know how much training the
teachers have had, but just from the way things seem-, not a lot”. When commenting
on the new programs that have been adopted, the reading technician commented that
with new programs and the new structure of the RTI team, members needed more

101
training in specific aspects of RTI. Referring to one of their new instructional
programs, she commented“…We will need to go and have the training. We were
watching the CD that came with this and that’s one thing that’s great and helpful, but
to actually sit down and listen to the person where you can ask questions if you don’t
understand, I would love to have more formalized training”. When asked about how
much training she had received for implementing RTI, she replied, “I have not had
any formal training at all.”
While the district offers stipends for professional development and an
increase in salary depending on your training, teachers still retain the choice whether
to attend or not. However, the Reading Technician admitted,
The school does offer really good training. I think I was just hired in an
awkward stage so that by the time I got the list of what was available a lot of
the classes were full because the list had been passed out around two months
ahead of time.

The district also partnered with a nearby University to present workshops on current
research and strategies related to expanding and building the district’s capacity for
using data.
The district and university researchers implemented a series of workshops
providing a system for the way in which data is analyzed and utilized. The series has
provided workshops for leadership teams and for grade level teams to expand their
capacity for using data to drive decision-making. By using specific protocols and
norms, collaborative teams were taught strategies to enable them to develop their
trust and skills for better analyzing, asking questions and reaching consensus on

102
students’ work. The series enabled teachers to work with the data and bring their
questions and comments back for further analysis. However few teachers from El
Paseo chose to attend the grade level workshops. During an observation of the 2
nd

grade PLC, the teachers from El Paseo were disappointed with their school’s
attendance and questioned teachers’ commitments to the RTI model. The workshop
had focused on a more uniform way of evaluating writing and teachers felt that the
other elementary school in the district that was more advanced in their development
of RTI had more data available with which to work and more representation.
Teachers expressed their need for further training, but stressed frustration at the poor
turnout for the data workshops.
Whereas training has been inconsistent at El Paseo, Valley Glen has made
teacher and leadership training an essential component of their model. While
teachers are offered many professional development opportunities through the
district’s Summer Academy, teachers are required to attend annual training related to
their model. The district administrator referred to the teacher training surveys they
had done during the initial implementation and commented that, “…If there was one
thing we did well it was probably the training of the teachers. My feeling was how
can they do this unless they’re highly trained.”
The principal of the school emphasized their commitment to training,
There has been teacher training because every program that a teacher teaches
we believe needs to be taught with fidelity and that the teachers need to be
trained to teach it. There has also been training in the model and meeting with
the other schools that have implemented the same model to really talk about
what’s working, what’s not working and what do we need to change and

103
what do we need to tweak, how can we make it better, sharing data, you
know really collaborating with the other schools as to what was working.

Ten of the educators spoke highly of the teacher and leadership training that they had
received through the district. The two RTI team specialists commented,
Every year at the end of the summer time we all, everybody at the school, all
teachers at the school and instructional assistants go through the training. We
also receive additional training in the particular programs that we’re using
whether it’s SRA or Read Naturally or whatever the different programs are.
We’ve all been trained in those as well.

We go back to work two days early every year in August and we have two
full days with inservices on all kinds of things. Yeah, everybody, yeah the
aides, everybody. It’s just fabulous, and the district really deserves a lot of
credit. They also run the professional development academy. You can get
online and look at the classes.

While being part of a school that has adopted PLC’s provides teachers with
many opportunities for collaboration, specific training related to aspects of the model
are necessary to increase the fidelity and the capacity of this reform. A strong
commitment to increasing teacher professionalism was identified by all nine teachers
at both schools as well as the RTI teams, principals and district administrators. This
data highly supported the importance of sufficient training and opportunities for
collaboration for the effective implementation of RTI even though these were not
always present.
Resources for Effective Implementation
Many other resources were utilized for implementation of RTI at both sites.
Educators identified several other important resources contributing to
implementation such as support of other personnel, sufficient time to implement the

104
reform, funding, and the use of data. There were other minor factors that helped or
hindered implementation at each site such as materials and insufficient space.
Personnel. Nine educators at El Paseo made specific reference to the fact that
support from other personnel had contributed to implementation of RTI. Most
comments were focused on the assistance given by the RTI team. Teachers felt
relieved that the lowest kids were receiving more intensive intervention, thereby
reducing the number of students in the classroom. There were also comments that
made reference to the fact that the RTI team and special education staff would help
with assessments and use of data. The district administrator commented,
El Paseo was looking at whether or not they should start doing DIBELS and
what would be the universal screenings and then how would we best measure
the progress of the kids who are in strategic groups or intensive groups or
whatever. That we continue to fine tune. The interventionists are helpful with
that as well. Our special ed teachers are also helpful with that. They really are
good at measurement and assessment and making sure that profess
monitoring is something that makes sense. What are we going to measure?
What’s the best way to measure it? At what point should it be measured?
What will we do with the results?

Teachers also made reference to a variety of other personnel that had contributed to
implementation. One of the Kindergarten teachers commented, “… We got a little
extra aide support to use just the kindergarten aide to help us form some small
groups and pull kids out to work with them.” One of the 4
th
grade teachers said,
“This year we have a parent who is a credentialed teacher. It’s a paid position too. So
while we’re meeting with PLCs we’ve got a paid professional in there working with
our handful of below basic or far below basic in math.” Several other resources were
also available. On Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, the Association of American

105
University Women (AAUW) volunteer to work one on one with a student that has
been recommended from a certain grade. The school seems to have many different
personnel resources to help in supporting aspects of implementation.
Valley Glen educators also made reference to the personnel support that had
aided implementation of their model. The RTI team are very much part of the
decision making team for all the classroom teachers and help with administering
assessments as well. They attend PLC meetings for all grade levels and are used to
support the lowest readers in every grade level. The RSP teacher commented,
Yesterday when we went around to our PLC meetings there was a first grade
teacher that was discussing a particular child and said I need some help,
could you come in and take a look? So I did. I went in the classroom today
and spent twenty minutes with this child doing observations so that I can go
back and help that teacher and give that teacher some strategies that will help
with that particular child. That’s the beauty of this program.”

As well as the RTI team, the school also has aides in some of the classes, however,
due to budget cuts, the RTI team no longer supports their math scaffolding and
teachers commented on the fact that the growing numbers in the school had impacted
the effectiveness of the model because group sizes were growing even with the
support of the RTI team.
It was easier when we were smaller. As we’ve grown it has become more
challenging because of the numbers. We had four people on our team when
we were at three hundred kids and now we have three people on our team
with seven hundred kids so our impact originally was much greater than it is
as we’ve grown. We’ve grown about a hundred kids a year.

While there are aides that help in the classroom, the closely monitored fidelity
ensures that all aides are trained in the programs they use and supplemental

106
instruction time is closely protected to ensure that students receive sufficient time.
The school also offers after school programs, mainly taught by classroom teachers,
and the kindergarten classes also make use of parents.
The majority of teachers agreed that the support given by the RTI team that
assists in the classroom with the lowest readers as well as providing support to
teachers in assisting with teaching strategies, analyzing data and making decisions
about instruction and intervention is an important factor that contributes to effective
implementation.
Time. Twelve of the educators from both sites agreed that one of the
resources that mainly impacted the implementation of the reform was the question of
time. Most schools are struggling with how much time to allow for various aspects of
RTI including, assessment, intervention, decision-making and training, Comments
from teachers spoke to this particular resource:
“We don’t have enough uninterrupted time to be consistent with RTI”.
“Time is always a challenge. I think time and efficiency. We don’t have
enough time so when we do interventions, we need to make sure that they’re the
right ones and that they’re efficient and that we’re not wasting time.”
“I think one of the main challenges is the time. We’d like to do it more than
just once or twice a week. We’d like to do it daily, but there’s just not enough time to
cover all the standards that we need to cover anyway in the regular classroom.”
“I feel rushed every day.”

107
The RSP teacher atValley Glen explained that the TLC model required a large time
commitment from teachers in terms of planning time,
The challenge is the time element because as I said it's a simple program but
its very time consuming. Everything is driven by data so you're doing a lot of
planning and a lot of collaborating, a lot of monitoring, constantly….
Sometimes time is really very, very tight. I think the teachers tend to work,
not just myself, but I'm speaking for all of the teachers here, they tend to
work longer hours because there is so much planning that goes in. For
example your home room class; you'll have different kids maybe for your
reading class and you might have different kids for [brute] study class,
different kids for math. You are doing a tremendous amount of planning for a
much larger population of kids than you would normally have in your
classroom. Time is an issue for all of us.

One of the aspects of time that educators made particular reference to was the need
for careful scheduling. The Valley Glen staff were thankful for the assistance with
scheduling and the fidelity to protecting the instructional time. They commented
specifically about the help that they received from the principal and when asked
about scheduling she replied,
For me the scheduling is massively challenging because we protect those core
instructional times. We don't allow people to have assemblies or
interruptions during the math scaffolding or the reading scaffolding time. It's
challenging to figure out how to do assemblies-, just figuring out how to have
protected instructional minutes for your core curriculum is challenging. Not
allowing parents to interrupt the classroom, not allowing assemblies to be
scheduled during that time, time to schedule recesses and lunches and art and
music and PE and all of those other things that are essential parts of the
program outside of that protected time, not allowing announcements to be
made during your productive instructional time, all of those things are very
challenging. Just setting up a schedule in itself takes weeks. Schedules are
my nightmare (laughing); very much a nightmare.

Timing and scheduling seemed to be one of the areas that El Paseo needed to focus
on in the future development of their model. One of the teacher angrily remarked,

108
No we're not doing it everyday. Twice a week, we sometimes did it three
times a week, sometimes once a week. It all depends on what was going on
at our school. Nothing is sacred in schools. There's really no sacred
instructional time unless you're talking about PE, because God forbid they
didn't go to PE, computer and library, because you must not let that ever
happen.

The RSP teacher commented, “… I think scheduling is one of the toughest things
that we have here. I think that it’s also tough to implement RTI even within a grade
level. Even the principal remarked on the need for time, “ I just don’t know that
there’ll be enough time in the day to do more than one RTI session just because of
the demands of the curriculum, but based on goals for each grade level, the subject
area changes.” He specifically referred to the lack of time as a factor that would
hinder implementation of RTI.
RTI requires a lot of time for decision-making, as mentioned earlier by the
need and importance of PLC’s and collaboration for effective implementation, for
planning and implementing lessons, but also monitoring all students. For students
that require Tier II and Tier III levels of support, there are the added decisions for
establishing timelines for the more intensive interventions. While many of the
teachers had positive comments about the results of implementation, the lack of time
was echoed again and again as an essential resource to the effective implementation
of RTI.
Funding. With the reauthorization of federal mandates such as NCLB (2004)
and IDEIA (2004), funding was promised to schools that implemented frameworks
to address the achievement of all students. Initiatives like RTI were introduced by

109
schools and districts not only to align themselves with current policy but also to
receive funding for implementation. Although federally mandated, many schools and
districts have not received any federal or state support in the form of policy
guidelines or funding to support this new reform. The district administrator at Valley
Glen indicated, “The state, as far as RTI models, the state has not come through with
regulations and so there’s no impetus-, and as special ed. its encroachment onto the
general fund has increased and increased and increased.” The principal at El Paseo
commented, “They make this huge mandate that everybody’s going to be proficient,
but there’s no funding attached to it or no programs; just here figure out how to do it,
but we want everybody proficient. We’ve had to come up with our own system.”
El Paseo put together a budget for their 3-5 year implementation of RTI.
They have used this money to hire key personnel for their RTI team, buy materials
for instructional programs and on-going professional development of teachers. El
Paseo’s principal remarked, “…We’re lucky we do have enough resources right now.
They’ve dedicated budgets for intervention, but we’ve also used it up so I hope that
we’re able to continue with that because that helps to have the resources available to
support the implementation of RTI.”
The district receives money through basic aid, so the property taxes in this
affluent area provide the school with funding. As well as general funding, the district
has put together a community non-profit organization for raising extra funds to be
put into the schools. During the recent State budget cuts, none of the teachers were
issued pink slips. While El Paseo seemed to be able to continue the implementation

110
of RTI with their current funding, Valley Glen proved to be an example of a school
where state and district budget restraints severely impacted the implementation of
their effective model.
Valley Glen is part of a large school district. The schools that utilize this
model in the district have always had to justify their effectiveness. Everyone
understood that from year to year, the model may not continue. The principal who is
a staunch advocate of the model said,
We’re funded out of the special education funds and we’re not a special
education program. We do have kids who are fully included who are SDC
students in our program. The funding has been an issue every year and that’s
why we’ve collected the data to show that it works and to justify our
existence. Every year we justify our existence. We fight for survival.

During the interviews, the teachers and leadership were extremely worried about the
impact of the budget cuts on the existence of their model. Comments such as this,
highlighted the teachers’ concerns: “The district really liked what it was seeing; the
test results were really supportive. But I do think it does cost them more because we
have to have more staff to implement it. Unfortunately I just don’t think it will stay.”
One of the RTI team also voiced her concern,
I love the model and I only hope that with the budget cuts that it won’t go
away although my fear is that it will. Initially it’s more expensive to run.
Later on down the road you reap the benefits and it pays off, but it takes a
few years to do that…. Our superintendent came out to visit and he loved
what he saw. In a climate where the state is in fiscal crisis it’s hard to support
something that costs more money even though it’s what’s best for the kids.

The majority of educators at Valley Glen identified the budget as a factor that
had or would influence implementation of the model at Valley Glen. Interestingly,

111
towards the end of the study, the district implemented their budget cuts. Valley Glen
lost all funding for their model, seventeen of their teachers no longer have jobs for
next year and their twenty to one initiative was lost too. The district administrator
sadly reported, “…Well last night they voted on the budget; it’s gone. We’ve had to
cut 27 million dollars. That’s an unbelievable amount. Today the principals are
coming in at 1:00 and they’re going to be handed riff notices for teachers. We’re
cutting class size reduction. We’re giving out two hundred forty riff notices. We’re
losing twenty to twenty-five percent of our teachers. This year is
horrible….Anything innovative is just going, gone.”
The principal voiced her disappointment at the loss of their model, “I’m just
struggling with depression over it…. We need a grant. We’re looking for a grant to
fund us. It’s difficult.”
While lack of funding caused the loss of this effective prevention and
intervention model, the data from this study can hopefully contribute to future
development of RTI by identifying aspects of the model that have provided effective
aspects of site implementation of this reform.
The Use of Data
Data proved to be an extremely important factor in the implementation of
RTI. Both schools recognized that resources were needed to collect, interpret and
utilize the data and therefore posed challenges such as having the time and personnel
for collecting and interpreting the data efficiently. Teachers’ comments indicated the

112
importance of data for ensuring accountability as well as for showing growth and
improvement, program effectiveness, and areas of need.
Teachers at Valley Glen were adamant about the importance of data for
effective implementation. A third grade teacher said, “The first line of defense is
always the scores. We’ll always go to the scores and then from there-, I mean that’s
how we divide them up to begin with is the scores. Then after we’ve worked with
them for a couple of weeks then things start filtering and moving around, but
definitely we use data to drive our decisions.”
Teachers referred to the way in which the principal had integrated the use of
data into their decision-making. One of the teachers remarked about the principal’s
use of data for improving instruction. She commented,
If you want documentation boy she has it! She has graphs galore. In fact at
our staff meetings at the beginning of the year she pulls up these Power
Points and shows you-, this is what the third grade middle of the road class
did. These are their scores-, and meets with you and says what were you
doing because maybe it wasn’t working or maybe that really did work?

Documentation was monitored closely for fidelity as it was expected to show the
effectiveness of the model. California School Services were sent in to analyze the
model to advise the district on how to proceed, and one of their recommendations
was to take the model district-wide. The principal tracked data to validate their
model. She had documented their findings and closely monitored the integrity of the
model. She stated,
The data was a big piece; trying to track the data. You know I tracked the
data …. I tracked all of the data by grade level and by group. That was an
important piece of what we did; looking at groups, looking at growth, what

113
groups grew more, how did the overall grade do? The data piece was big
because we were always trying to justify our existence because the model
cost more money.

Teachers referred to the large amount of data required to keep track of both the
scaffolding groups as well as homeroom classes using this model. One of the 2
nd

grade teachers commented, “… Well as far as assessment, … I guess its increased
because of having-, instead of twenty having to keep track of all of your scaffolding
groups’ testing, and we exchange grades for each subject that we scaffold for.
Another teacher commented, “We’re constantly-, well you know writing down the
DIBELS progress, monitoring-, we’re having to write down and enter in the
computer. Yeah I mean my grade book is much bigger than it would be normally
because I’ve got all these other kids and their grades.” The RSP teacher corroborated
the data. She commented, “I could show you data coming out of my ears. Even in my
plan book-, I have just tons of data in here in my plan book. I mean it’s readily
available. This is in addition to all the progress monitoring. I mean it’s at my
fingertips at any given time. I mean pick a chart, any chart; I’ve got it all here.”
Ten of the educators at Valley Glen agreed that their particular model
required a bigger workload for teachers with particular reference to the amount of
data that was needed for effective implementation. The RSP teacher commented, “…
You’re doing a lot more assessing. You’re doing a lot more monitoring than I ever
did at any of the schools, but we have that information available to us to make those
decisions…. If you’re not documenting you’re just flying by the seat of your pants

114
and it’s not data driven at that point. This way we have a lot of data. It’s a lot of
work, but it’s a lot of data that we have available.”
Twelve of the educators at El Paseo also commented about the importance of
data-driven decision making and the way in which it contributed to many areas of
RTI. The Assistant-superintendent commented on the fact that the data had
convinced them to adopt RTI, “We really analyzed the amount of time that was spent
doing the interventions with the gains that students had. It was pretty clear.” The
principal focused on the importance of data for targeting areas of reading and
commented,
With all of our new assessments there is increased documentation. Not too
broad but more targeted information instead of general; well she’s not
reading well. Now we can say the student’s not reading well and her area of
difficulty is phonemic awareness, fluency, reading comprehension, so it’s
more specific.

Classroom teachers also commented on using the data to plan instruction. One 4
th

grade teacher said, “…At the beginning of the year we look at the data from the
previous year’s test scores. We find an area that we need to support and come up
with lessons amongst ourselves. We see it not just as accountability, but also the
measurement tool to measure the progress of a student, or if it’s not working let’s try
something else or use different strategies.”
The Reading Technician at El Paseo focused on the increased accountability
that data provided. She commented,
You know to cover ourselves and to just have that data to show; this is where
your kid started and this is where they are now. They have had growth
whether it’s solely due to me, their parents, you. Ninety nine percent of the

115
time it’s a combination of everything. But yeah there’s been growth and it’s
been working.

Many decisions have to be made by implementers regarding data collection and
analysis. The educators at El Paseo were still in the early stages regarding data
decisions. The Assistant-Superintendent commented,
We were looking at whether or not they should start doing DIBELS and what
would be the universal screenings and then how would we best measure the
progress of the kids who are in strategic groups or intensive groups or
whatever. That we continue to fine tune. The interventionists are helpful with
that as well. Our special ed teachers are also helpful with that. They really are
good at measurement and assessment and making sure that progress
monitoring is something that makes sense. What are we going to measure?
What’s the best way to measure it? At what point should it be measured?
What will we do with the results? There are many decision points. What I
think we’ve seen happen is that teachers get more fluent with that and so it
becomes much more just the ebb and flow of the day.

To complement all the decisions regarding data, El Paseo teacher and leadership
training had been focused on a series of workshops for using data more effectively.
El Paseo was building the capacity of their teachers for collecting and using data.
Both sites clearly acknowledged the importance of using data to drive many
decisions including the effectiveness of instruction, identifying specific areas of
weakness, planning intervention and examining outcomes. Data needed to be reliable
and trustworthy so that that decisions that resulted could contribute to continuous
improvement of various aspects of the RTI framework.
Other Resources
Educators identified a few other resources that needed to be considered for
implementation. Both sites referred to lack of space for ideal implementation of RTI,

116
however, the schools had managed to erect dividers in the library and find a corner in
the RSP room to claim more space for small group or individual instruction.
Educators also remarked on the importance of having sufficient materials. Educators
from both schools also felt they had sufficient materials to implement RTI and
stressed that if there were other materials that were needed, administrators would
listen to their requests, as long as they were research-based. Teachers and
administrators alike referred to the importance of using evidence/research-based
materials. The principal of Valley Glen said, “All of them are research-based. We
don’t use anything that’s not research based.” One of the teachers commented,
We only in this district, are allowed to use research based programs so we use
Open Court, we use Read Naturally, we use Lindamood Bell, we use SRA,
we use oh I don’t know how many other millions of things, you know, but
they’re all research based.

Teachers from both schools were thankful that there were some mandated programs,
and that they were able to make decisions about how they would be implemented in
the classrooms.
The Role of Leadership
Leadership is yet another factor that has both helped and hindered the
implementation of RTI at both these sites. This section of the data will explore the
role of leadership in implementation by examining district leadership, school
leadership as well as teacher leadership and their influences on RTI implementation.
District Support. District support for both of these models contributed
towards implementation. The initial research done by the Valley Glen’s district

117
resulted in a pilot program that would become the model utilized at this site. The
district piloted the schools in the district and tried to find ways to justify the extra
cost that was needed for personnel. The district administrator commented,
So the first year of the program, whenever there was a money danger or slight
problem-, I was doing a lot of justifying by number one, the transportation
costs that we were not using… we were not using special ed transportation…
The first year I did a lot of ok we’re not testing these kids so therefore we’re
saving costs. They are not qualifying for special ed-, we’re not testing them
and we’re not putting them into that special education system.

One of the teachers commented about the district support, “At the administrative
level, at the district level, they have been pushing for this and that’s why we’ve been
able to keep it.”
However, other factors hindered the strong district support. Change in
leadership severely impacted the program. The district administrator explained,
Then my boss retired two years ago and there was new leadership in special
education. At the time I was sort of in special ed and general ed because we
were trying to unify everything. Well when my boss left, new leadership cam
in and now there’s going to be another change in leadership in special ed.
There was no ownership to the existing program. It was not her baby. I could
sense that was going to happen, but you see special ed has been picking up
the costs of the program.

She remarked that without “cabinet level” support from the district, accompanied by
the budget cuts, the model was unable to remain. So although the district had largely
been responsible for its implementation, it was also responsible for its demise.
El Paseo has also had strong support from its district. The Assistant-
Superintendent, who strongly supports the implementation of RTI, has provided
district resources for various aspects of the current model. The district initially

118
implemented PLC’s and provided the time for teachers to collaborate. They have
hired the personnel, bought intervention programs, helped in developing the district
calendar for assessment and intervention and have provided ongoing professional
development such as their workshops on using and improving data use. The new RTI
reading interventionist talked about the importance of feeling supported by the
district administrator,
She’s great. When I initially talked about the DIBELS she came in and I felt
like she had my back. She told them [teachers] why it was important ….I feel
like I do have a lot of support.

One of the second grade teachers also commented specifically on the support that
they had had from the Assistant Superintendent,
Then we asked-, the assistant superintendent to come to our PLC meeting and
we showed her our data and that we had collected and how it really fit with
Step Up to Writing Program; that these were the things that that focused on.
So now we’re going to be able to go ahead and pilot having the training. So
in that way our district is very supportive. We did use our data and we shared
it but we weren’t asked to share it and we were allowed to share it for a good
purpose.

Teachers and the principals at both sites felt they had had support from the district.
There were other personnel in leadership positions that had also influenced
implementation.
The support of the principal. All the teachers and the district leadership at
Valley Glen referred to the influence that the principal had had for the
implementation of their model. Some referred to her support of their decisions
impacting instruction. Others commented that she had made funds available for
intervention, provided extensive professional development and given teachers and

119
students the time for collaboration and instruction. Some of the teachers commented,
“…You know to be perfectly honest you need a really good principal; you need a
strong principal who really believes in the program. Our principal was in from the
very beginning and really believes in the program.” While another teacher
commented, “What she did was we have our PLC time every Thursday. She’s only
used one Thursday per month for her staff meeting. She’s stuck to that which is
really good.”
An RTI team member at Valley Glen commented,
Our principal’s amazing. She’s the thermostat for the school. We’ve had
tremendous collaboration together and we’re a team and pretty much joined
at the hip. You know it’s a huge support. She asks constantly, not just of
myself but of all her teachers, she asks for input, she wants to hear from us,
she values our opinions and she makes decisions based on what we think is
going to work with these kids because we’re working with them every day.
The collaboration has been tremendous.

The district administrator also commented,
Valley Glen has worked so well partly because-, I mean mainly because of
the commitment level of somebody like their principal. You’ve got to have a
principal who buys into the value of all of this. That’s really, really key.
They’ve got to understand the model and then they have to really buy into
meeting the needs of the kids.

While providing support in many areas and encouraging teacher decision-making,
she has also been the person to monitor the fidelity of the model and keep all the
data. One of her teacher’s acknowledged,
Our principal’s pretty much through here all the time and she’ll stop and if
she saw something unusual she might ask-, just to make sure that it goes
along with our standards of what we’re supposed to be teaching. If she
walked in and we were showing a move we need to justify why if she asked.

120
So, while teachers felt support from the principal and made comments such as this,
“…Because she is very open as far as allowing us to teach in our own specific
ways,” they also understood that she would closely monitor the efficacy of the
model.
El Paseo teachers did not feel quite as much support from their principal.
Teachers felt that the principal needed to get more involved. One of the teachers
commented, “The administration with RTI has basically felt like you guys run it; I’m
going to be there. I’m going to be checking on you, but not an integral part.” One of
the other teachers complained about the scheduling,
You know the principal wouldn’t just laterally fix our schedule so that we
could all meet and do a rotation because the RTI concept kind of came in and
the schedules had been set and we were off kilter…..So we ended up having
to make a deal with the third grade teacher to beg her to do her music at
another time. Why did we have to beg someone? It was not in a hierarchy of
importance. It wasn’t important to do that. The principal should have just said
guess what, we’ve got to change the schedule because we have to get all
these people on the same time zone so they can do a rotation.

Teachers indicated their need to have more specific support. One of the teachers that
had observed at one of the schools this district had initially partnered with,
commented on the way in which she observed the role of the principal at that school,
So the second school we went to had this dynamo principal. A lot of times
that’s what it takes, that person who has that passion to lead the way and
show you a way for those that don’t have it…. And you’ve got to have
somebody who knows what they’re looking at. They can’t do a drive by your
PLCs and in your RTIs and say oh yeah its working. The reason why the
RTIs and PLCs work in the schools where I went to is those principals knew
what exactly every single group was doing, what their success ratio was, they
had a real handle on it.

121
While teachers expressed that they could do with more support from the principal,
there were also comments that acknowledged that if they needed assistance they
could go to their principal. The new RTI interventionist commented, “…The
principal and I will meet on an as needed basis. I know that he wants to put me into a
schedule so he can meet with me weekly, but things have just been very crazy so not
yet. I can-, anytime I need him I can go to this office and talk to him. He has an open
door always.”
There were also more generic comments about assistance from administration
that might have been referring to the principal and/or district.
In terms of the administration of course they're the ones that put together and
work out the schedule so we could have PLC and we could have that early
out day with the students on Wednesday so we could meet as a grade level.
Also if we want to meet-, for instance we try to have meetings with the first
grade team and the first grade team shares with us what they're looking for
when the Ks go on to first grade and give us feedback so that we know, ok
well we're kind of weak in this area. We need to work more in this area. We
get feedback that way as well. The administration finds and allows time for
us to be able to do that and sometimes it's not even during the PLC time.
Sometimes they'll give us additional time by getting us substitutes so that we
can meet that way to discuss things. So they are-, I would say that the
administration is very, very pro PLC, pro RTI. I mean they've really taken
this and embraced it and really have opened the door so that we can work on
this and work through it and so it's very supportive that way. It's a priority
for them.

While at Valley Glen the principal was extremely involved in all aspects of
implementation, the assistant-superintendent at El Paseo seems to have been the key
leadership person for implementing the model and monitoring fidelity. Different key
personnel at each site have been influential factors as far as leadership is concerned.

122
Teacher Leadership. While educators at both sites mentioned the role of the
leadership teams, it was difficult to establish how effective they had been and
whether or not they had been a strong contributing factor to implementation. At
Valley Glen all teachers have to be trained in all the programs that are used and meet
once a week in their PLC’s. During observations, the leadership member of the
team’s role in PLC meetings seemed to be that of reporting back about leadership
meetings and asking for teachers’ input that could be relayed back to the
administrators.
At El Paseo, teachers also meet regularly with their PLC’s, the comments
about leadership teams were that non-members missed out on a lot of training, and
that the leadership team’s responsibility was bringing the messages down from the
administrators. They would also document what was happening with the grade level
PLCs to provide documentation to the principal. While the district administrator
talked about using the leadership to increase the capacity of RTI by encouraging
experts at every grade level, and documents indicated the active coordination of the
leadership team in the training, coaching and evaluation, teacher’s comments did not
echo the same sentiments. Neither school site made reference to the importance of
leadership teams to RTI implementation. However, this may be an area that needs
further examination.
For implementation of RTI at both these schools, leadership has played an
important role. For the adoption of this reform at Valley Glen, the district provided
initial support and resources. Once the model was implemented, both the district and

123
especially the principal continued to develop the capacity of the reform by ensuring
that teachers were highly trained and the model was implemented with fidelity.
While teacher leadership teams were mentioned as making decisions during early
implementation, the data from interviews supported the importance of all teacher
contributions to many of the decision-making. At El Paseo, leadership has also
contributed highly to implementation. With the support of the district, the RTI
initiative has been provided with many resources. While the principal is supportive
and is accessible to teachers, many of his staff felt that they needed further assistance
with certain decisions regarding the structure and scheduling of the grade level RTI
time. Once again, although there were documents and comments from the district
leaders that focused on the importance of the leadership teams, the data did not
confirm these as influencing RTI implementation. Leadership proved to be an
important factor contributing to implementation as well as a hindrance. Valley Glen
lost the support for the model once there was a change in leadership and teachers
from El Paseo felt they needed more support from leadership to implement the
reform effectively across grade levels.
Systems Level Capacity and Support
Research on school reform implementation also focuses on the importance of
building the capacity of a reform to improve sustainability (Datnow et al., 2006;
Slavin, Madden, & Datnow, 2007). By strengthening and developing aspects of this
reform, schools and districts are more likely to increase the effectiveness of the
framework (Danielson, Doolittle, & Bradley, 2007; Supovitz & Taylor, 2005) . The

124
schools both felt the lack of support from the State with regards to funding and
guidelines for implementation. When asked whether the state has provided any level
of support for the reform, the district administrator from Valley Glen replied, “No,
no!” The principal of El Paseo mentioned,
The impact from the state is that we have a very rigorous, standards based
curriculum that’s been pushing us to try and succeed in meeting those
standards, but as far as additional resources and funding and things like that
there’s not a whole lot of that, which would be nice.

While the State’s capacity to support this reform may change in the current years,
both school focused on the development of systems within their own contexts. El
Paseo put an emphasis on their ‘Systems Change Objective’. For many years they
had used a variety of different systems that functioned independently. Special
Education services were separate from general education. The systems for
identifying and addressing behavior and academic difficulties were separate. The
objective was introduced to try and unite the systems to support the teaching and
learning environments of the school as a whole. By designing and implementing
their School-Wide Systems for Student Success, academic and behavioral systems of
interventions supported by the collaboration of general education teachers, special
education teachers, RTI specialists, related service providers, paraprofessionals, and
parents were put in place to improve both teaching and learning. The school realized
that if resources were provided earlier, many students would never need Special
Education. The Director of Special Education indicated that the expertise of the
special educators were needed before students failed and before they were identified

125
as needing Special Education. However, she indicated that the change was taking
place slowly. Teachers were gradually coming to terms with their new roles and
beginning to feel that they were all part of the same system.
The Director of Special Education talked about the role of fidelity developing
the capacity of the system. She remarked,
What’s going to happen when the system is fully operational is the teachers
will keep each other accountable because what you end up creating is almost
…. not a competition but you end up creating pressure on the different grade
levels to be implementing it well because as everybody is looking at
everybody else’s kids and we may be grouping across grade level, as teacher,
Jane Little, I need to trust you that when I send you my kids you’re delivering
because if you’re not am I going to be wanting to participate? So we’ve got a
great group of teachers. I honestly think there will be a new pressure to
perform. As you start sharing kids, I’ve got to trust that you are going to
deliver for my kids Since we’re sharing, everybody’s got to be accountable
because there’ll be complaints to the principal. So I think people will be
higher performers as a result of this implementation. Whose ultimately
accountable …. the principal.

These comments indicate what is shown in the data regarding fidelity and integrity of
RTI. The reform which is still new is slowly building capacity. Teachers,
administrators and specialists are gaining and using knowledge as the reform
progresses. The influence of the teachers on each other and those that have not yet
begun implementation is detailed by the data which shows that the majority of
teachers think that RTI is effective for all different groups of students. Teachers
commented on the need and their desire to address students’ difficulties by
improving their knowledge and expertise. By adhering to guidelines and improving
the structure and purpose of the reform in this district, teachers will increase the
fidelity and integrity with which RTI has been implemented through increasing their

126
capacity. The principal must be supportive and increase his own knowledge and
expertise so that his capacity as a leader can increase and he can assist his teachers
further with implementation.
The goal of building the capacity of this reform can be seen in the documents,
professional development, educator’s comments and presentations made by El
Paseo’s district and the educators within it. I think a re-examination in a year or two
of the implementation at this site will reveal some interesting developments about
the implementation of this complicated reform.
Valley Glen had also implemented a variety of systemic supports for
effective implementation. Their assessment and instruction were based on
systematic, school-wide responses. The systems of support were clearly delineated as
far as time, intensity, assessment and decision-making, and were implemented with
integrity. While the systems within the particular model were effective, the capacity
of the reform was depleted due to the lack of support from other levels of the system
such as the district and the state.
Over the past five years there have been times when the capacity building had
potential benefits to the sustainability of the reform. The district administrator
referred to the many presentations they had done with the model initially,
The first year of the program we really did the SCA, which is our special
education group. We did the county special education group. We did two
board of education presentations. We really did a road show the first two
years to sell the program. Honestly, the parents loved the program.

127
She also referred to a report that had been produced by California School Services
that recommended district-wide implementation of their model and commented,
One of the major recommendations was the whole district should be TLC.
It’s right in our board packet. I was there because they had panels, they talked
to parents, they talked to teachers, they talked to administrators and then they
came up with this gigantic report… I think if we hadn’t been going through
such difficulties with our superintendent and leadership, two years ago might
have been the time where-, and if we revamped the whole district and maybe
had gone to this model-, it was clear what School Services said-, and the
parents would have loved it. I mean the whole first two years whenever I met
with a parent group, or a special ed parent group, they said why isn’t this
happening in all of our schools?

Building the capacity of a reform is essential to its continued improvement. Research
in education consistently points to failed reforms that are introduced and unable to be
sustained for a variety of different reasons. In this section, there are many examples
of the potential for increasing the capacity of the RTI reform. Current studies are
searching for factors that may contribute to the sustainability of the RTI reform.
While Valley Glen will no longer have the resources to build the capacity of their
reform, El Paseo will be entering the third year of implementation and is poised to
develop the capacity of different aspects of their reform such as teacher training,
structural refinement, effective use of data and school-wide teacher buy-in.
Summary of Factors Affecting Implementation
The data identified many factors that had contributed to or hindered
implementation of RTI. The factors that strongly contributed to implementation at El
Paseo were the importance of PLCs, collaboration and data-based decision making,
as well as teacher training and the support of other personnel for implementation.

128
The most strongly supported data was the importance of ongoing improvement. Most
educators were optimistic about the effectiveness of the RTI framework and while
they identified many areas that needed improvement, they were hopeful that their
current model would improve further.
The educators at Valley Glen identified slightly different factors as
influencing implementation. Throughout the study, educators focused on the lack of
funding as the factor that was likely to and eventually did cause the loss of the
model. While they identified factors such as teacher and leadership training, data-
based decision making and PLC collaboration as factors that had strongly
contributed to the model as well, the aspect of this study that received the strongest
support was for the structure of the model. Most educators agreed that the model
implemented at Valley Glen was an effective model to achieve all the goals set out
by the district.
The factors that have been examined, selecting the structures of RTI, training
and professional development, resources, leadership support and building the
capacity of the reform are some factors that have influenced the implementation of
RTI. These factors and others must be examined before a school district makes
decisions on their model for RTI.
Educators’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of RTI for Identifying
and Addressing Reading Difficulties
This section of the findings reports the data regarding educators’ perceptions
of the effectiveness of the RTI reform for identifying and addressing reading

129
difficulties. Most of the educators from both sites were optimistic about the use of
RTI for improving the academic performance of all students: however they did
identify certain challenges that might impact its effectiveness. While their comments
were specific to their own particular sites, they echoed many of the same perceptions
about the effectiveness of RTI.
Valley Glen Educators. The Valley Glen educators were very enthusiastic
about the model implemented at the school. They talked highly of not only the
amount of intervention that it provided, but the way in which the model addressed all
students’ needs. They spoke especially to the effectiveness of scaffolding and
differentiating instruction. The principal remarked, “It’s your gifted and talented
program, it’s your EL program, and it’s your RSP program all wrapped into one.”
One of the teachers commented, “I think for the low low and the high high it’s really
effective for them because they’re with their own peer groups so they push each
other even further.” There were further positive comments. One first grade teacher
said,
I think everyone gets what they need with it. I think the high kids get the
programs, the special kids get the special programs and the things that are
good for them to have. The average kids get the regular grade level reading
program or math program. Yeah I kinda think it gives everyone what they
need.

While most teachers focused on the specific aspects of RTI that impacted at-risk
students such as the benefits of lower teacher-student ratios, they also referred to the
way in which it also impacted other students. One of the teachers explained,

130
It’s great for the kids with special needs because they get the smaller group,
the extra intensive remediation. I teach the low first grade readers. I have
three teachers in the class. We have fifteen kids. …. I have a resource teacher
and an aide and myself in the class. Then I have them for a half hour by
myself-, well about forty minutes.

The RSP teacher explained,
You cannot tell the SDC kids from RSP kids from general ed kids here.
They’re in groups according to what they need. You can’t figure out, ok is
this an RSP kid or a general ed kid? You don’t know. Its really invisible here.
It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re identified. If they need our help they
get it.

ELL Students. Seven of the educators made special mention of the impact of RTI on
ELL students. A third grade teacher explained,
If a student is an English language learner they they’re able to get their needs
met too. As they’re learning the language, they’re working at their own level,
their own ability, and then as they learn the language we can definitely move
them up into the level that they’re really academically at when the language
challenge isn’t there.

Another teacher agreed with the effectiveness of RTI for ELLs. She commented,
It’s no different. If language acquisition is not there and they need the extra
support they’re in there whether or not they’re identified ELL. They may or
may not be. They’ll be in groups where they need to be. Chances are they
would be in the lower groups because they don’t have the language
acquisition, so they’re supported.

High Achieving Students. The model at Valley Glen also received much support for
its effectiveness in addressing higher achieving students. Ten of the educators agreed
that the structure of the model and the scaffolding groups that targeted high achievers
were extremely effective. The RSP teacher commented,
It’s great for kids above grade level because they can do all of the extension
activities. They’re not being held back by the slow learners …. they’re going
to a teacher based on their needs so they get all the extra extension kinds of

131
activities in their classroom because they’re going to a teacher where they
can do all that high level thinking in their reading groups.

The teachers identified the flexibility that allowed them to work with the higher
achieving students.
The principal is very open as far as allowing us to teach in our own specific
ways, that gives us more latitude. Especially since I have, my niche has been
implementing a lot of the GATE programs, and that doesn’t always jive with
the NCLB, but she’s very open to that.

There was strong support from Valley Glen educators for the effectiveness of their
RTI model. When asked to comment on challenges that could be identified, they
focused specifically on the difficulties for the students. Teachers, specifically those
teaching the lower grades, commented on young students having to move to different
classrooms,
I think there are kids though who the change is hard and going from class to
class is hard. I have a boy in my homeroom class who’s in my math class and
he probably needs to be moved out pretty soon but I’m nervous about him
because he’s not one to-, like he doesn’t behave the same way with other
people as he does-. So for some of them I think it is a challenge to move from
room to room and some kids of course goof around as they go to their other
class and run down, and you know end up somewhere else.

For some students, this change in teachers and rooms was also seen as a refreshing
change. One of the other challenges identified by teachers was the lack of modeling
from higher learners and the attitudes that could develop from always being at the
top. Although students are not in their scaffolding groups all day, a lot of the time
students are with a homogenous group. A third grade teacher commented,
The one negative that I can see after doing this for several years is that I
worry that some of the kids aren’t getting the modeling that they need from
some of the higher kids and some of the higher kids are-, I hate to sound-,

132
kind of have an elitist attitude because they’re only with those kids for math
and reading; although they’re mixed in the other time. I worry about that
balance and making sure that they’re balanced. I look at the whole child too
and I thin-, and after a couple of years they say oh I know I’m in the highest
math-, oh I know I’m in the highest reading group.

A fourth grade teacher also addressed the difficulty with the different levels, and the
challenges in communicating with parents. She admitted,
The parents tend to know which classroom has the certain level of kids.
There can be that part of ok well I want my child in the highest group. You
know that and then just the communication between-, you know the extra
communication of having to make sure that you’re on top of-, instead of just
thirty-something kids in different subjects now you’ve got-, I mean I might
have sixty or seventy different kids that I see for either math, reading or word
study outside of my homeroom class.

One of the 1
st
grade teacher’s also addressed parental issues by stating,
You’re not really allowed to talk to the parent. Everything’s done through the
[classroom] teacher… because it’s the teachers tell the parents that they’re
not growing and I’m like but they are growing, even though the DIBELS
isn’t showing it. This is what they’re doing and they don’t tell the parents
that. It really is hard.

While some of challenges were identified, there was much support for the
effectiveness of the model and it’s ability to positively impact all students.
El Paseo’s Educators. The majority of educators at El Paseo were pleased
with the way in which the RTI reform was progressing and added to the data
regarding the effectiveness of the reform for diagnosing and addressing reading
difficulties. The Assistant Superintendent explained the benefits of similar ability
groupings,
Having those flexible groups and being able to be in a literacy group that
they’re reading at their own level and progressing from there, many of the
kids who weren’t participating much in class really quite just blossomed, and

133
they’re reading aloud and they’re speaking out because its not overwhelming
to them.

The Reading Intervention teacher agreed with the effectiveness of regrouping. She
said, “You’re regrouping and that’s how those kids who are above and beyond like
the little kindergartner who’s reading at the third grade level-, you take them above
and beyond where they need to go.”
Although some of the educators from El Paseo are still in the early stages of
implementation, one of the teachers reflected on their lessons from the previous
year’s implementation,
Yeah I think the thing that we all realized last year, after the whole year, was
that students without difficulties … I feel bad for the students in the
classroom who are being held up and they want to move on. So they’re able
to work at their own level and not feel either rushed or bored. It’s a win/win.

Even a 4
th
grade teacher explained,
It’s beneficial for not just us as teachers but the students. They move on to
the next grade level and it’s again-, even though it’s structured differently
they still benefit from small group intervention from someone with that area
of expertise.

Most teachers’ acknowledged the benefits of RTI reform for students at risk for
reading difficulties. A second grade teacher commented,
Definitely those at-risk and for learning disabilities [benefit from RTI]. I have
children who this year are in RTI. I have another child who’s in special Ed
who’s going to be pulled out of special ed and go into RTI. I think depending
on the child’s disabilities, definitely, but I really see more children in RTI
who are from special Ed.

The Assistant-Superintendent was so certain of the impact of RTI on at-risk students
and those identified for special Ed, that she voiced the district’s plans for the future,

134
One of the things that we’ve talked about in that three to five year
commitment is that if and when the resource specialists caseloads went down
because we were identifying fewer people, that we should make a
commitment to keep those folks on staff and use their time differently, use
their time to support kids in general ed. That’s how I think the shift would
come.

Supported by scaffolding, small group and even one-on-one intervention, students at
risk and even those identified as LD were perceived to be supported by RTI at El
Paseo.
ELL Students. Educators’ also confidently talked about their perceptions of
the impact of RTI on the ELL students. Seven of the administrators and teachers
supported its effectiveness. The district administrator commented,
We’ve see gains in our English Language Learners. They actually made gains
at a great rate than our general population on the CST. You can see when you
go, like at El Paseo for example in the flexible groupings that our EL kids are
fluent at this point and are doing quite well. That lower student-teacher ratio
in the strategic and intensive groups really contributes to their gains.

One of the 1
st
grade teachers talked about the impact of RTI on one of her ELL
students,
I have a kid that just came from Mexico and I gave him reading at level 10,
and he can decode way past that, but he doesn’t understand one thing about
what he’s doing. That’s where you pull that kind of kid and you’d just
frontload the language and frontload the-, everything would be super
scaffolded so that by the time you read the story they’d know all of the
verbiage that goes with it so that there’s a real success level in terms of
comprehension.

High Achieving Students. Just as perceptions indicated the effectiveness of
RTI with ELL students, educators also referred to the successes regarding high
achieving and GATE students. A first grade teacher said,

135
I had the GATE students last year so it was great. We were off and running.
Parents were telling me how excited-, in fact I had one mother who said that
her son was for the fist time not bored-, because we could take him to his
level. He was able to read a paragraph. I was teaching them how to pull out
the important words from a sentence and then to recreate those words into a
summary for the whole paragraph. You can’t do that with a regular first grade
class.

The principal also commented on the ability of RTI to address the high achievers. He
commented, “We can do RTI, Response to Intervention for them. How do we extend
the learning for them with number sense or math concepts? We can do some
challenge work with them.”
This data regarding El Paseo’s educators’ perceptions predominantly
indicated that RTI could effectively impact all students, however, the challenges that
they identified were more focused on the teachers and their need to have trust in their
team’s ability to implement RTI in the manner in which it was supposed to be
implemented. One of the first grade teacher’s commented,
Part of what I think you’re going to find when you’re doing your research, if
people are honest with you, is that RTI and PLC has to start with a basic trust
level. If there isn’t trust level, because you’re dealing with your children and
you’re dealing with their children, now they’re all of our students, if there
isn’t a certain trust level that they’re going to work at the same intensity
level and the same commitment to the job that you are; that the house of
cards could crumble and it could crumble fast.

One other teacher remarked, “It’s really difficult because we have some people who
are resistant to giving up their children or wanting other teachers to see their
children’s reading levels. It’s all those delicate issues. We have to go slowly.”

136
While there was overall support for the effectiveness of RTI in theory, there
were still questions from some of the teacher’s regarding the ability of their
particular model to impact all students.
Most of the educators at both sites were encouraged by the data resulting
from RTI. Not only did they refer to the benefits for at-risk students, but many
identified the way in which all other students could benefit from RTI including ELL
students, LD students, GATE students and general education students. While Valley
Glen teachers perceived that their model effectively addressed all their students, the
educators at El Paseo were still a bit hesitant about some of the grade-level structures
and the willingness of all teachers in the team to take ownership for all students.
Teacher’s perceptions clearly indicated the tremendous potential that RTI has for
improving the academic achievement of all students yet raised questions regarding
the importance of factors such as collaboration, time, scheduling and accepting
ownership of all students.
RTI as an Alternative Method for Identifying LD
As well as providing a framework for prevention and intervention, RTI has
also been considered as an alternative method for identifying students with LD.
While there has been much research published on this topic, educators seem to be
unsure whether RTI has the validity and reliability to be used solely as an alternative
way to identify LD. Should lack of response to intensive intervention signal more
serious difficulties or is a comprehensive battery of assessment and intervention
needed to provide evidence of eligibility for special services.

137
Valley Glen. Teachers were asked to provide their opinions and perceptions
of whether RTI could be used as an alternative method to diagnose Learning
Disabilities. The question was difficult for educators to answer as the model at
Valley Glen reduces the need for students to be identified as they are all provided
with intensive intervention. The district administrator explained:
There are specific, even now, specific slopes that say ok if a child in not
making this kind of progress then we will use that as part of a
multidisciplinary assessment…. It is one piece of the data. It doesn’t negate
the psychologist’s testing. We don’t really look at IQ testing, but with the
model, what basically happens is the team collects data and meets back as
part of a Student Study Team (SST) process and says ok even with the kind
of support that we can manage …. The kid is still not making progress.
That’s been very, very few and far between.

The teachers commented on how the model impacts these students. The SDC teacher
remarked,
You always have some that no matter all the scaffolding that we do and the
interventions, they really need something else whatever it is. Perhaps they
are learning disabled so we’ll test them. One of the interesting things though,
I think we’ve tested three children this year at parent’s request and none of
them qualify.

The model has been implemented so that students don’t need labels to get services. A
first grade teacher commented,
When we get a new student we just want to look at that student for who they
are and take them from where they’re at and start building upon that and not
give them limitations. I think anytime you label a child and you give them
limitations, they’re going to respond to that.

Most of the educators agreed that students got far more intervention with this model
than at other schools. The teachers explained that parents were happy for the
extensive support that their children received and this was one of the reasons that the

138
number of students had grown by about one hundred every year. The only problem
that could be foreseen was if the model was lost, there would be students who could
perhaps have received a label and would now not be documented as needing special
services. The district administrator commented that the district had not yet developed
a protocol to use this framework as an alternative method for diagnosing a learning
disability but was open to finding out about districts that had.
El Paseo. Eight of the twelve educators who expressed their opinions agreed
that RTI could be used as a tool for identifying students that were not responding to
instruction. A kindergarten teacher commented,
For instance, I have a student right now who is in RTI and its not working for
her. I was just going to continue in the RTI program but it gets to a point
where I think you know this really isn’t working and we’ve tried different
things within the RTI, now I think its time for her to be tested. There’s
something that might be keeping her from making the progress she needs to
be making. It might not have to do with the instruction that she’s receiving it
could be a processing situation. So it think RTI helps to sort of get to a point
where ok we need to continue with this and she’s making profress or she
needs to be further tested because she might need some special Ed program.

Other teachers also mentioned the importance of unresponsiveness for signaling the
possibility of a processing weakness or another LD, and indicated that Student Study
Teams (SSTs) would start a broader examination of the individual student once they
exhibited unresponsiveness to both core and intervention in the second tier. The RSP
teacher said,
Then at the SST we discuss if there’s further interventions, recommendations
or modifications that we can make. A lot of times that’s the first step that we
like to do, and then give that about six to eight weeks to see if we see any
improvement, then if not come back again. Then if we haven’t seen any
growth that might be when we talk about testing for special education.

139
Most of the teachers agreed that while RTI could be used as an important tool for
preventing learning difficulties, it should not be used solely as a method of
identifying a student with LD. One of the kindergarten teachers commented, “I feel
like for those students that are at-risk RTI is definitely a really important tool. Its
good for those I feel like who don’t quite qualify for special services, but I’m not
sure it could be used in place of”.
The RSP teacher substantiated many of their opinions,
I think it would be the good starting point. You know they’re not responding
to instruction …. then those are the students that we would look at to see if
they needed special ed. I think that to take away the testing though to see if
there are processing problems and things like that-, I don’t think you could do
away with that aspect of it.

The question of whether to use RTI as an alternative method for identifying
students seemed to be one that still required further examination for teachers. They
were prepared to suggest that RTI could be used as a part of the process for
identifying LD, but were unsure about using it in place of the traditional model.
There was agreement that the RTI framework could certainly help identify learning
difficulties early on and be used for prevention and intervention, but teachers were
unsure that it could help identify specific weaknesses. While teachers expressed their
opinions, I am not sure that this question can be fully explored without the expertise
and opinions of psychologists and specialists who participate currently in
establishing eligibility.
The majority of teachers at both sites perceived that the RTI framework could
be used to address the needs of all students. While there are a few teachers that were

140
interviewed who were not yet experienced with RTI implementation in their
classrooms, the prospect of what the framework offered and the data that had been
collected so far, was enough to convince them that RTI could effectively improve the
whole continuum of student outcomes. The systematic interventions that are part of
the framework can be used to identify non-responders and begin the process of
collecting and analyzing the data for problem-solving individual student’s
difficulties. RTI is perceived to be an important component in the process of
eligibility for special education and as more data from studies becomes available,
there might be valid and reliable components of RTI that pave the way for RTI to
represent an alternative method for diagnosing students with LD.
Summary of Findings
The final part of this chapter will review the findings from the research
questions and then provide a summary of the results.
Findings from sub-question 1.
The complex factors involved in constructing and implementing an
educational reform such as RTI causes schools and districts to develop a model to fit
their own context. While both of the schools in this study address a fairly similar
population and have both achieved high API indexes over the last few years, their
plans for implementing RTI were very different.
El Paseo has focused on developing a cohesive systems approach for
increasing the capacity for teaching and learning. RTI is one of the initiatives
focused on developing academic competence that functions as part of the larger

141
system. The three-tiered model in theory involves various levels of intervention
beginning with scaffolded groups in the general classroom and becoming more
intensive with smaller group sizes or one-on-one assistance from the RTI team.
The goals for El Paseo are not only to improve academic achievement for all
students but to provide systematic interventions for students that were not eligible for
special services so that teachers felt more confident about addressing the needs of
these at-risk students. The RTI reform has provided a system to do this. However,
there has not been complete teacher buy-in to achieve school-wide implementation.
Some El Paseo grade level teams needed further help designing the RTI reform to fit
their team and students. Other grade levels are already well on their way and were
able to improve the structure, relevance and efficiency of their RTI time from the
year before. Yet, here were still some grade level teachers who were just beginning
to buy into RTI.
However, ongoing capacity building measures that are part of the 3-5 year
plan are being implemented to improve and strengthen the current model. Further
staff training, development of assessment and measurement tools, introduction of
new programs and interventions, as well as stronger support from the RTI team have
the potential to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of the reform. This
school district has prepared the beginnings of the reform to support academic
systems for student success, and the data that is beginning to be accumulated will
measure outcomes as well as efficiency of the current model that has developed at
this site.

142
While the educators at El Paseo have seen a gradual development of their
model, the teachers at Valley Glen immediately began implementing a model that
had been chosen as a basis for their development of RTI. While teachers’ decisions
contributed widely to the development of the reform in the classroom, the model was
carefully monitored and developed to ensure fidelity and integrity during
implementation. Teachers were expected to buy-in to the model if they wanted to
work in the school and the workload is larger than many other models because of the
scaffolding in reading, math and word study.
The goal of this district had been to improve the academic performance of all
students, in particular the capacity of teachers to serve at-risk students, as well as to
efficiently serve special education students while reducing the costs. This full
inclusion model incorporated the use of special educators in the general education
classroom and provided levels of support based on individual needs. Although the
model also provides a three-tiered level of interventions, every student received
instruction in their scaffolded groups daily. Second and third tier students
participated in double- and triple dippings of the core content or supplementary
instruction received in small groups and one-on-one during and after school.
The extensive data that has been collected has indicated the effectiveness of
the model, however, the development of the reform in this district has been
dependent on the dwindling resources and expertise of this particular site. With
recent funding cuts, the district funding for an SDC teacher to help in implementing
intensive instruction, the school lost seventeen very well trained and qualified

143
teachers able to implement the system, and they also lost their twenty-to-one
initiative for the K-3 grade classrooms.
This tragic result indicates that even though districts and schools expend huge
resources for developing and implementing new reforms, all may be lost due to lack
of funding resources and support. These two cases illustrate how schools with
similar populations and similar goals for RTI can implement a similar reform quite
differently. Each school’s unique context and the model it developed was influenced
by the inter-related factors between the people, their roles and the resources
provided. While this study has focused mainly on implementation at the local level,
policy implementation is influenced by variables throughout the different levels of
the system. This co-construction of the reform resulted in two different models, one
that has been clearly effective but can no longer be sustained, and another that has
not yet reached it’s potential, but has the capacity to become an effective model for
RTI.
Findings from sub-question 2.
There were a number of common factors that influenced implementation at
both sites, and then there were factors only identified by the individual site. Some of
these factors helped with implementation and others hindered implementation.
The data indicated at both sites the importance of initial planning for a
complex reform such as RTI. The school districts focused on developing the capacity
of their teachers by introducing PLC’s to identify and make decisions about what
students were going to learn and how they were going to measure outcomes. The

144
PLC’s have provided ongoing professional development to build ownership for all
students and also to support the collaborative relationships that are so important to
RTI. The PLC’s have contributed widely to the construction of the reform in the
grade level classrooms. By encouraging teacher decision-making and bottom-up
development of the reform, there was more buy-in from the teachers for the RTI
reform.
As well as PLC’s, both sites provided other training opportunities to teachers.
El Paseo partnered with other schools and universities to have teachers observe sites
that had effectively implemented RTI already and ongoing workshops for teachers
focused on improving the capacity of the teachers to use data. As well as these,
teachers were given stipends for outside training and increased pay dependent on
their qualifications. Valley Glen also provided extensive training to teachers both in
implementing their specific model and also in using the research-based programs in
the classrooms. They were encouraged to attend workshop provided by the district’s
or other sites. While most teachers at Valley Glen felt their training had been
sufficient, most El Paseo teachers wanted further training and help to ensure
effective implementation.
The findings also provided data about the importance of structural decisions
and their impact on implementation. The two sites chose very different structures for
implementing RTI, both dependent on many resources. Collaboration proved to be
an essential aspect of the framework. Collaboration was important for all personnel
involved in implementation. It contributed to the effectiveness of examining data,

145
student work, making decisions regarding groups, individuals and instruction, as well
as sharing expertise.
Resources were extremely important to implementation. Educators at both
sites identified personnel, time, documentation and funding as important factors
effecting implementation. Whereas El Paseo educator’s were given sufficient
funding and personnel support, they expressed the need for improved scheduling and
time to implement RTI, as well as the need for more efficient data sources. Valley
Glen’s staff identified the personnel, documentation and time as resources that
contributed to the reform and the lack of funding as the biggest hindrance to
effective implementation.
Both sites also identified the role of leadership as an important factor
influencing implementation. At El Paseo the Assistant-Superintendent had strongly
contributed to implementation of the model, while the principal was identified as
needing to provide more structured support for the teachers in terms of scheduling
and operationalizing the structure of individual grade implementation. The principal
at Valley Glen was a major contributing factor to implementation, and although
leadership support waned from the district, the principal was starting a fund raising
and grant writing taskforce for the continued implementation of the model for the
2008-2009 school year.
Finally capacity building was also identified as a factor contributing to
implementation. While Valley Glen had done a lot of capacity building initially, lack
of resources eventually outweighed the ability of the school to continue

146
improvement. El Paseo, however, was focused on building the capacity of the reform
in several areas such as staff training, data driven decision-making, buy-in and
developing the fidelity of the framework.
Unfortunately the many factors that influence a reform are dependent on
developments in all layers of the educational system and at different times. The co-
construction of a new reform happens quite differently depending on the specific
contexts. It is difficult to foresee how a particular model is going to develop.
However, the data that has been examined in this case study, certainly corroborates
other contemporary research on large-scale school reform and more specifically for
RTI that examines factors that have helped and hindered the implementation of this
reform.
Findings from sub-question 3.
The majority of educators from both sites agreed with the basic principles of
RTI models and felt that the framework would benefit all students including at risk
students, ELLs, high achievers and GATE students as well as all other general
education students. Figure 3. below outlines their responses specifically related to
this question. The findings from this sub-question provide perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of RTI for improving the achievement of all students and as an
alternative framework for identifying LD.
By using small group instruction and scaffolding for similar ability
groupings, educators related the successes of RTI for all students. While more
intensive intervention resulted in successful outcomes for at-risk students, educators

147
also commented on the way in which RTI was able to successfully address high
achievers who could be given extension activities, ELL students who were able to
receive instruction focused on language acquisition, and regular education students
who were also able to show improvement when grouped in a more homogenous
class. While some teachers were concerned that having a homogenous group
prevented modeling from higher achievers, and Valley Glen teachers worried about
the amount of students that they were responsible for, the educators as a whole were
extremely optimistic about the successes they had seen with RTI Implementation.

Figure 3: Typology of Educators’ Responses
Benefits all
students
Benefits some
students
Does not benefit all
students
El Paseo 8 2 0
Valley Glen 10 2 0

Finally, the study also examined educators’ perceptions regarding the ability
of RTI to be used as an alternative method of identifying LD. Their typology of
responses related to this question have been outlined below in Figure 4. However,
the data needs to be carefully interpreted, because although many teachers agreed
that RTI could be used as an alternative method for diagnosing LD, their responses
were qualified in which most of them explained that RTI could be used as a
component of a more thorough approach. Teachers were optimistic about the use of

148
RTI as a tool or a component that could contribute to identification. Many concluded
that unresponsiveness to intervention should signal the beginning of a SST process
that could look more closely at the specific interventions being used and the
individual’s weaknesses. There was also agreement that comprehensive
psychological testing used in more traditional models was necessary to identify
weaknesses that might not be determined by solely using unresponsiveness to
instruction as a means for determining eligibility or identification of a LD. This
question needs further research and should include the perspectives from
psychologists and specialists who participate in these decisions currently.

Figure 4: Typology of educators’ responses related to whether RTI can be used as an
alternative method for identifying a Learning Disability
Yes Undecided No/Not Yet
El Paseo 4 4 1
Valley Glen 7 0 1

Overall Findings and Significance
The sub-questions have provided the evidence to be considered in answering
the overarching question of this dissertation:
How and why do schools implement RTI differently; and how does this contribute to
their implementation efforts?

149
The findings have provided specific details about the goals, strategies and
methods used by each site for implementing their model, with an emphasis on the
structure of the service delivery model, the factors that have influenced
implementation, and their potential effectiveness, capacity, and sustainability. While
it is clear that that these sites have implemented their models very differently due to
a myriad of reasons and influences, what is not quite as clear are the results of this
implementation.
Valley Glen has ample evidence that supports the effectiveness of the model
for improving the achievement of all students. However, these students will probably
no longer be getting this support and instead the school will begin to re-construct a
model that now fits the new context. The model that has had five years of
implementation experience and had the potential to expand its capacity throughout
the district, now no longer exists in any of the schools in this district in which it had
been introduced.
El Paseo is still in the early stages of implementation. The district has an
action plan and a budget to support it so far. The newly implemented RTI team is
building its capacity to assist in many areas of implementation and the district has a
goal for increasing the capacity of their leadership team. As well as this, the district
is committed to continuous improvement based on outcomes. While data is
beginning to emerge in the grade level teams that are implementing RTI, there is
room for refinement and a need for early implementation across the grade levels that
have still not implemented an effective model. The results should be closely

150
monitored as implementation progresses to monitor and improve the model that has
developed at this site.
This chapter has presented the findings and analyses of each sub-question for
contributions to the overarching question. Many themes and factors have emerged
from the data that contributed towards explaining how and why these schools
implemented RTI differently and how they contributed to their results. In Chapter
Five, an overview of the study will be presented as well as a summary of the
findings. These findings will then be connected to prior research. Finally, future
research recommendations are made, and the implication discussed for future policy
and practice.

151
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Introduction
Backed by empirical research (Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006; Jimmerson, Burns, &
VanDerHeyden, 2007; Simmons, Coyne, Kwok, McDonagh, Harn, & Kame’enui,
2008) and federal policies such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), RTI provides a three-tiered
framework of interventions for students experiencing reading difficulties as well as
monitoring the achievement of all students. RTI focuses on examining the outcomes
of teaching and learning using research-based instruction, ongoing monitoring and
assessment as well data-driven decision-making based on observable and measurable
outcomes (Fuchs, Deshler, & Reschly, 2004; Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn,
2004; Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Kavale, 2006).
While RTI offers a set of research-based practices supported by scientific
evidence, it is a complex reform with many facets. Large-scale implementation faces
many challenges due to the many variables that must be considered. RTI offers
accountability for all students if implemented with fidelity. Despite a growing
number of studies that have investigated its effectiveness for addressing different
groups of students (Calhoun, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King, & Avalos, 2007; Chiappe &
Siegel, 2006; Haager, & Windmueller, 2001; Vaughn, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon,
Small, & Fanuele, 2006), there is still fairly limited knowledge regarding
implementation.

152
This study has examined the implementation of RTI at two school sites, both
achieving good outcomes for students. The qualitative data offers an in-depth
examination of the many factors that have influenced implementation and a
comprehensive discussion of how each model was constructed to fit the context of
the district and school. Data such as this can contribute to research that provides
evidence of whether this approach is a valid alternative to current methods of
identifying and addressing underachievement and if so what factors, components and
instructional practices are necessary for effective implementation of RTI.
The study addressed the following questions:
How and why do schools implement RTI differently, and how does this
contribute to their implementation results?
Sub-Questions:
a) How does each school’s unique context and their goals for RTI
influence their implementation efforts?
b) What factors have helped or hindered implementation of RTI at each
particular site?
c) How do educators’ perceive the successes and challenges of their RTI
model and its ability to impact students?
Summary of Findings
The findings from this study have provided a detailed account of two
schools’ implementation of RTI. Both El Paseo and Valley Glen have implemented
frameworks for prevention and intervention that are closely aligned to the guidelines

153
specified by research and include research-based instruction, ongoing monitoring of
students’ responses to instruction, and data-driven decision making (Fuchs & Fuchs,
1998; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
The models provide three-tiered model of service delivery. Level I is
primarily used to provide research-based instruction using the universal core
curriculum, level II provides more intensive intervention in smaller groups with the
assistance of members of the RTI team, and level III at both sites uses a
multidisciplinary problem-solving model to provide the most intensive interventions
either in small groups or one-on-one with assistance from the RTI specialists.
Research has shown the feasibility of multi-tiered instructional models to prevent
and address reading difficulties (Chard, Stoolmiller, Harn, Wanzek, Vaughn, Linan
Thompson, & Kame’enui, 2008; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2008; Kamps, Abbott,
Greenwood, Wills, Veerkamp, & Kaufman, 2008).
At Valley Glen, all students receive instruction in their scaffolded groups for
50 minutes every day for reading. The lowest performing students are identified and
provided with the most intensive intervention with the support of the RTI specialists.
Students at level II and level III that need extra intervention can access this support 5
times a week for 50 minutes in small groups or one-on-one with the RTI specialists.
Although the lines between these two levels are not specified, high-performing teams
of teachers share the collective responsibility for all students and problem-solving is
made by the collective expertise of a SST made up of the teacher, RTI specialists,
principal and other specialists if need be.

154
El Paseo had decided that RTI would be implemented in scaffolded groups
twice a week for 40 minutes with the classroom teacher. Students that needed more
intensive support were provided with small group or one-on-one intervention with
the RTI staff with rate and duration suggested by the RTI specialists. While these
extra supports were provided to the neediest students in all grades, certain grade
teams had not implemented RTI yet or used the time to do whole class rotations
rather than intervention.
While both these schools were implementing the research-based model of
RTI, the service-delivery was entirely different. The findings indicated the
similarities as well as the different factors that influenced implementation at either
site. While both models indicated that teacher buy-in, collaboration, resources,
professional development and leadership enhanced implementation, there were
questions about the integrity and fidelity with which some of these factors and other
factors were executed, as well as the capacity for the models to be sustained.
This study revealed a number of interesting findings. Valley Glen’s full
inclusion model protected the time and intensity for implementing their model. The
teachers were trained to implement all the instructional programs and took
responsibility for a large number of students throughout the day. While the student
outcomes were positive, teachers complained about the enormous time it took for
planning and implementation and commented on the lack of time to focus on things
other than academics. With the loss of funding and resources, the Valley Glen model

155
that adhered to research guidelines and positively impacted students could not be
sustained.
El Paseo also provided some interesting findings. While this model was
developed at a slower rate, and needed improvement in many areas as it progressed,
the sufficient resources provided a stable foundation from which to increase its
capacity. The model as it is being implemented currently has implemented the most
effective structure in 1
st
and 2
nd
grade, while other grades use RTI specifically to
address the students with reading difficulties and use the RTI time for rotations or
other activities. While it may not be impacting all students in the school, teachers
made reference to the high outcomes of the students and the varied curriculum that
fit the school’s culture.
Both the models were developed to fit the context of the school. Whether or
not Valley Glen will be able to sustain or resurrect its model in the face of budget
cuts, is still uncertain. Whether El Paseo will implement RTI for all grades in the
three-tiered structure has yet to be seen. However, the findings point to the large
number of variables to be considered when a school district is planning to implement
a complex reform such as RTI. Hopefully other schools and districts can learn from
these and make decisions based upon research and context-specific factors that need
to be considered before implementation.

156
Connections to Prior Research
The findings from this study will now be discussed in relation to the literature
that was reviewed in Chapter 2.
Policy Implementation Research
This study has elaborated on the complex dynamics involved in the process
of educational change. By presenting a comparative case study of the
implementation of two different RTI models, this study has produced a conception of
implementation that emphasized the reciprocal relationship between implementers’
actions and the context within which they are situated (Datnow, 2004, 2005; Datnow,
Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002).
This study supports a co-construction view of implementation and has
demonstrated that each model was dependent on the interaction between the policy,
the people and the context of the specific site (Honig, 2006). No only was this
interaction at the local level, but also at the district, state and federal levels. While
NCLB and IDEIA have mandated policies at the federal level, the state has
implemented their own methods of accountability using state standards and state
assessments. At both of these sites, although educators were encouraged to
participate in the construction of the reform, the district provided the support and
resources necessary for implementation to proceed. Co-construction often
acknowledges the role of power in policy and that the capacity of implementation is
dependent on a variety of supports. These supports may be initiated at higher levels
of the system even though local implementers may shape the implementation at the

157
local level (Datnow & Park, 2008). This study showed how two schools interpreted
the federal policy supporting RTI quite differently as they implemented it in their
local sites.
The study focused primarily on the implementers and their role in co-
construction of the RTI reform. As both “the object[s] of reform and the agents of
change” (Datnow & Park, 2008, p10), their actions and decisions have contributed to
the way in which the reform has been constructed at each site and the effectiveness
of the policy within the individual context. Contemporary research on teacher
education has shown that by valuing the experiences of practitioners and learning
from their practice, policy implementation is likely to be more successful (Slavin,
Madden, & Datnow, 2007). Their knowledge of the skills and supports needed for
implementation can contribute to empirical and practical knowledge (Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Cochrane-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). Studies such as
this can capitalize on the knowledge of the educators to inform implementation of
school reform, and in particular, RTI as well as acknowledge the importance of
educators at the local level and their contributions to co-construction of policy
implementation.
The Structure of RTI
RTI provides a set of research-based practices that offers a framework for
prevention and intervention (Fuchs, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Using research-
based instructional methods, ongoing monitoring and assessment of students as well
as data-driven decision making, the framework provides a multi-tiered approach to

158
addressing the educational needs of all students (Bender & Shores, 2007; Haager,
Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007). Both of the models that have been examined in this case
study included all of these components.
However, a component that is also essential to RTI is the fidelity and
integrity with which the framework is implemented (Klingner, Cramer, & Harry,
2006; Shinn, 2007). Without implementing it the way in which it was prescribed, the
framework may not be effective for identifying non-responders and addressing
specific difficulties. While Valley Glen’s model was implemented with fidelity and
was monitored by the principal, the model at El Paseo had not yet reached this
position, and required further support to ensure that the framework was being
implemented with fidelity.
Standard Treatment Protocol and Problem Solving Approach. The literature
describes two different protocols for implementing RTI. While it was originally
conceived that schools would use one or the other strategy for implementation,
evidence suggests both strategies are fundamental to a RTI model (Batsche, Elliott,
Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, & Prasse, 2006).
The standard protocol uses a predetermined intervention for students that
have been unresponsive to instruction in the general education classroom and
sometimes in tier II interventions (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Vaughn, Linan-
Thompson, & Hickman 2003). This strategy is implemented for a fixed duration in
small groups and is often used because it is more economic for providing
intervention. The problem-solving approach is primarily used in tier III

159
interventions, when students have not responded to previous interventions. A
collaborative team uses a variety of problem-solving steps to set goals for a
particular student and monitors their progress to ensure effective decision-making
(Burns & Yesseldyke, 2005; Tilly, 2003).
Both these strategies were used at the individual sites. El Paseo used standard
treatment protocols to address most of the students needing tier II and tier III
supports, but also implemented the problem-solving approach for students that were
not responding sufficiently and needed further expertise. A meeting with teachers,
specialists and sometimes parents would ensure that the interventions were tailored
to the individual’s needs. The Valley Glen model also used mainly standard
protocols for delivery of interventions, but ensured that if students were still not
making sufficient progress, the SST would make decisions about how further to
address the individual’s difficulties. Sometimes this resulted in still more intensive
group intervention and sometimes one-on-one with the RTI specialist.
Factors Influencing Implementation
The findings in this study address many of the factors that have contributed to
how and why schools have implemented RTI so differently such as initial planning,
collaboration, professional development, leadership and building the capacity of the
reform.
Initial planning for a school reform is important for a number of reasons.
Building consensus from implementers has shown to increase buy-in and support the
sustainability of a reform (Datnow, 2000, 2005) as well as result in a model that is

160
better matched to the context of the site (Stein, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002). This
study has shown that by encouraging teachers to contribute to the implementation,
they established a bottom-up sense of implementation that resulted in a sense of
ownership for the reform. While the teachers’ viewed the decision-making as a
bottom up process, they made reference to the importance of leadership and strong
decision-making from the top. The result is a co-construction of implementation in
which initial planning has cultivated buy-in and ownership for the RTI reform.
The majority of teachers at both El Paseo and Valley Glen clearly supported
the implementation of RTI and were enthusiastic about the way in which they had
contributed to the reform. Administrators at El Paseo will have to help develop and
structure RTI for efficiently if school-wide intervention is a goal. The teacher from
the 3
rd
grade team had been hesitant to implement RTI initially, but was ready to try
and implement the framework next year.
The importance of collaborative structures on school reform has been studied
(Coburn & Stein, 2006; Spillane, Reiser, & Gomez, 2006), and has indicated a
relationship between collaboration and improved student performance (Berry,
Johnson, & Montgomery, 2005; Hollins et al., 2004). The participants in this study
identified the importance of collaboration for planning instruction, looking at
students’ work, sharing expertise as well as data-driven decision-making.
Researchers have also shown that sharing knowledge and expertise can strengthen
the collaborative approach (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). In this study, having the
support from other personnel was an extremely important factor influencing

161
classroom teachers, who relied upon the collaborative expertise of the grade-level
team, RTI team and leadership during implementation of RTI.
Professional development is also widely referred to in the literature as
contributing to successful policy implementation (Datnow et al., 2005; Gersten &
Domino, 2006). Research specific to RTI has shown that without developing the
capacity of the teachers who will deliver the interventions, RTI cannot be carried out
with fidelity (Danielson, Doolittle, & Bradley, 2007). For RTI to be effective,
ongoing, intensive training for personnel is needed to develop the skills to administer
effective interventions (Glover & DiPerna, 2007; Vaughn et al., 2006). Training
proved to be an extremely important factor in this study. The teachers at El Paseo
still felt the need for more training to more effectively implement the RTI framework
with regard to the structuring and delivery of interventions, while the teachers at
Valley Glen felt they had had much training in implementing the model as well as
delivering instructional methods, and felt qualified to implement their model.
Leadership is another factor that has been shown to be important for school
reform and proved to be essential for implementation of RTI at both of these school
sites. Research has shown how district support can sustain a reform (Desimone,
2002; Tognieri & Anderson, 2003) and how a change in key district personnel can
result in the inability to sustain a reform (Datnow, 2005). Leadership impacted both
models in this case study. The El Paseo model had support from the Assistant-
Superintendent who made sure that there were sufficient resources to develop the
model and increase its capacity. The Valley Glen’s model was unable to be sustained

162
after a change in leadership resulted in no key district personnel to support their
model and provide the necessary resources.
Research has also shown the importance of a strong principal and their role in
developing and sustaining a reform (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et al., 2006). As Sebring
and Bryk (2000) found, the principal in their study provided support for the teachers
but maintained a focus on reform. The same qualities were found in the principal of
Valley Glen, who encouraged teachers to make decisions regarding implementation
in the classroom, but kept a focus on the data and the integrity with which the reform
was implemented. The principal at El Paseo also supported his teachers in their
implementation efforts, but did not provide the support and guidance that some
teachers were looking for regarding the structuring and scheduling of
implementation. Teacher leadership teams were acknowledged to be part of the
model at both sites, however, little reference to their role made this a resource that
could be developed further.
Resources have also been shown to contribute to the success of a reform
(Datnow et al., 2005; Slavin 2004). Both these models required a variety of resources
for implementation including personnel, time, data and most importantly funding.
While the model at El Paseo was developing and improving with a variety of
resources and available funds, the model at Valley Glen was unable to be sustained
because of a lack of funding. The enormous resources that were expended during the
first five years were lost due to budget cuts in the district and state.

163
Finally, building the capacity of the school, district, state or federal level of a
reform has shown to improve the ability for it to be sustained (Datnow, 2005;
Datnow, et al., 2006). Both models have expended resources for building the
capacity of their models in their schools and in terms of training, instructional
programs, and collaboration. However, resources are needed to build capacity and
without them, it is difficult to improve and sustain the reform and was the case with
Valley Glen.
While this study confirmed many findings from prior research, there were
other factors that influenced implementation that may be grounds for future research.
The majority of educators at El Paseo made reference to the importance of
differentiating instruction. Twelve of the thirteen educators at Valley Glen
commented on the importance of scaffolding groups for effective implementation.
Whether through collaboration or training, these aspects impacted effective
implementation. This is an area that needs to be explored further to determine: What
knowledge teachers need to have to successfully identify students for similar ability
groupings? How to address and differentiate for these groupings? How scaffolding
and differentiation influence implementation of RTI? Whether schools with high
outcomes should implement same ability groupings? Do lower performing students
need modeling from higher achieving students or would they progress at a faster rate
if they were remained within the same ability groups? Having this knowledge and
expertise would expand the capacity of the reform. While teacher training and

164
professional development were influential factors, this aspect of implementation is
essential to educators who are charged with conforming to policy guidelines.
Another finding that may contribute to the development of research on the
RTI framework is the influence of ongoing improvement. While the study referred to
the importance of building the capacity of aspects of the framework to sustain the
reform, educators at both sites provided strong data for the importance of monitoring
and developing the reform using feedback from them. In a complex reform such as
RTI, there are many different aspects of the framework that can be developed.
Consistent monitoring of the practices within the framework using a variety of
different instruments and surveys will help identify specific aspects of the reform
that may be improved from the teachers’ perspectives – not only from the student
outcomes.
Effectiveness of the RTI Framework
As well as contributing to variables responsible for impacting
implementation, educators also reflected on the effectiveness of the RTI framework
for addressing the needs of particular groups of students as well as the student body
as a whole. Their perceptions once again are a result of their practice and their
knowledge. Their perspectives can contribute to data examining the effects of RTI
for improving the academic achievement of all students.
The use of RTI to diagnose reading difficulties. A broad research base has
focused on the use of RTI for identifying and addressing reading difficulties (Al
Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Mathes et al., 2005; O’Connor et al., 2005). Early diagnosis

165
and intervention are essential for preventing and remediating these difficulties
(Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs & Bryant, 2006; Denton & Mathes, 2003; Scanlon,
Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2005). Multi-tiered models of intervention
have shown positive outcomes for students at-risk for learning difficulties (Al Otaiba
& Fuchs, 2006; Case, Speece, & Malloy, 2003). Those that are unsuccessful in the
classroom are provided with tier II and tier III supports increasing with intensity and
support (O’Connor et al., 2005; Vellutino et al., 2006). Students that are non-
responsive to even the most intensive intervention may be eligible for special
education.
The teachers at El Paseo and Valley Glen recognized the importance of the
reform for early intervention and remediation of students at-risk for reading
difficulties. Students that were struggling with the core curriculum in the regular
classroom were identified and provided with small group or one-on-one intensive
intervention depending on their needs. Both models utilized the three-tier research
model for implementation of RTI with added problem-solving capabilities for
students that were non-responders to intervention. The RTI framework was used at
both sites to implement strategic interventions for all students to prevent and address
any reading difficulties that were identified.
The Use of RTI with ELL Students. There is emerging evidence that RTI can
be effective for addressing the needs of ELL students (Calhoun et al., 2007; Chiappe
& Siegel, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006c), and for preventing the need for special

166
education due to language and cultural differences (Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta,
2006; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Vaughn et al., 2005).
In both of these models, EL students were tested and put into groups
depending on their needs. While El Paseo provided specific ELL support for students
outside the classroom, they were also scaffolded into the grade-level teams for
intervention. At Valley Glen, ELL students were also scaffolded into the grade level
groups with similar abilities. Educators at Valley Glen made reference to their
professional development they had received in the area of language acquisition and
specifically for assisting ELL students.
Educators’ supported the effectiveness of RTI for ELL learners and how they
were benefiting from being with students of their own ability and focusing on
strategies targeted at their weaknesses. The majority of teachers at both sites referred
to the positive impact of RTI for ELL students.
The use of RTI with regular and high achieving students. Studies are
beginning to examine what it takes to implement the core curriculum effectively as
well as the importance of primary intervention for preventing the need for Special
Education (Foorman, Carlson & Santi, 2007; Greenwood, Kamps, Terry, &
Linebarger, 2007). These studies focus on the importance of choosing research-based
instructional programs and on the importance of time and data-based decision
making for determining effective response to instruction.
The educators at both schools referred to the importance of implementing
research-based programs, but the teacher’s at El Paseo were given more leeway

167
regarding their implementation. The Valley Glen teachers were monitored closely by
the principal and given guidance as far as looking at data and ensuring that they had
sufficient protected time to implement the model.
The data at Valley Glen indicated that although the school was growing
annually and had lost resources, the scores were high (refer to API scores in Chapter
3). What was most surprising about the findings for this section, was the unyielding
perspective that not only was RTI a framework that could address the needs of at-
risk students, it was perceived to be effective for all students.
The use of RTI for the identification of Learning Disabilities. There is a broad
research base that focuses on the ineffectiveness of the IQ-achievement discrepancy
for identifying LD (Fletcher et al., 1998; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Francis et al., 2005).
RTI may be an alternative approach to conceptualizing LD and establishing
eligibility for Special Education (Case, Speece, & Molloy, 2003; Fuchs, 2003;
Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). RTI offers a systematic method of providing early
intervention, makes distinctions between students at-risk for difficulties and those
with more severe reading disabilities, and provides instructional implications for
remediation (Vellutino et al., 2006). While it seems to offer a more valid and
improved pre-referral system, there is still some question as to whether RTI is a
component of the process for establishing eligibility criteria or whether it is
sufficient to establish a diagnosis.
The educators in this study wrestled with the same questions. While most of
them agreed that RTI could be used to address prevention or remedial needs, they

168
viewed the framework as a component of the process for establishing non-
responsiveness to intervention. While lack of responsiveness to even the most
intensive intervention signaled the need for further testing and team decision-making
regarding eligibility at El Paseo, Valley Glen’s model meant that even with a label,
the student was fully included in the general education classroom and received most
of their instruction in groups scaffolded according to their ability.
In sum, this study has contributed to both research on RTI implementation
and the research that addresses the effectiveness of RTI on student groupings. It has
examined numerous factors that have been shown to influence implementation and it
has provided support for RTI as a framework for addressing students at risk for
reading difficulties. Not only has it provided positive support for RTI as a prevention
and intervention framework, but it has also detailed the effectiveness of RTI for
monitoring and providing instruction for all students. While the El Paseo model was
very closely matched to the RTI research model, Valley Glen provided a different
conceptualization of the RTI framework in practice. Schools and districts
considering implementing RTI will gain knowledge and insights into the
complexities of this reform by examining general implementation studies. This study
will provide additional data on RTI from the practitioners’ perspectives.
Implications for Future Research
The comparative case study has examined the implementation of RTI at two
different schools in different districts. While the RTI models were very different,
there were many common factors that influenced them both as well as some that

169
were context specific. However, both schools were small schools with similar
populations and high outcomes. Further research is needed to generalize these
findings and extend them to provide a broader research base by examining RTI in
different contexts.
For example, research studies are needed to examine implementation in
schools that address students with lower outcomes. The factors influencing these
schools may be similar to the findings in this study, but may also result in data that
indicates the difference in context. Comparison studies of higher and lower
performing schools and their implementation of RTI may yield important findings
for extending the research base for RTI.
Further studies are also needed to examine the breadth of the RTI reform and
its effectiveness in schools with high outcomes. Whereas the RTI initiative may
contribute towards closing the achievement gap specifically in schools with larger
populations of underperforming students, it is still unclear whether the effort and
resources necessary for implementation of the framework are beneficial for schools
where there are a small percentage of underachieving students and if so, whether the
framework can be implemented specifically for these students.
While Valley Glen had implemented scaffolding for math as well, the lack of
personnel meant that the classroom teachers provided most of the support and
intervention. Research must explore the adaptability of RTI for other content areas
such as mathematics and begin to provide the basis for prevention and intervention.

170
While both these schools have implemented RTI, the reform is still in its
early stages. Further research is needed to establish how schools are improving the
fidelity of implementation by examine the effectiveness of components of the model,
as well as the model as a whole and its affects on teaching and learning. Valid and
reliable instruments must be developed to monitor the fidelity of implementation and
monitor the improvement of the reform.
Schools and districts should be encouraged to participate in research studies
that provide analyses about different aspects of their implementation. While Valley
Glen was eager to participate in the study in the hopes that by detailing its
effectiveness, it might be sustained, El Paseo’s administrators were very hesitant
about their participation. The in-depth examination of their implementation has
provided a wealth of data for future further improvement. It is important for
researchers and schools sites to work together for the improvement of educational
research and practice.
There is still much research needed to establish the diagnostic criteria for
establishing eligibility for special education based on RTI. Non-responsiveness must
be further defined with specific focus on the integrity with which the interventions
must be implemented. Research on training and professional development must
examine educators’ capacities for delivering these interventions so that reliable
evidence supports the eligibility requirements that must be determined to receive
Special Education.

171
Finally, longitudinal studies of RTI implementation are necessary to capture
the changes over time. This study describes the decisions and changes that happened
in a fairly short duration of policy implementation. Longer studies will reveal other
factors that may improve and help sustain RTI implementation.
Implications for Future Policy and Practice
The findings from this case study offer implications for future policy and
practice. Policy makers and educators should use this data to guide their decision-
making regarding various aspects of the RTI framework so that implementation of
RTI is successful.
Policy implementation is complex. The variables influencing implementation
are dependent on the interrelation between the implementers, the policy and the
context. Careful consideration must be made by policy planners to examine how
federal, state and local systems can support the coordination and implementation of
school reforms as complex as RTI. What are the federal guidelines? Does the state
provide funding or administrative support? How will the district support
implementation?
Before districts and schools begin implementation, it is essential to create a
long-term plan for implementation. By examining the resources available and
considering the context of the school, implementers must plan the structure of their
model and the practices that form the foundations of the framework to sustain
implementation. How many tiers of intervention will there be? What assessment
instruments and instructional programs will be used at all levels? How will funding

172
be allocated? Who will make up the RTI team? What will the intensity and duration
of interventions be? Who will be part of the decision-making team? What
collaborative structures will be implemented?
By including the teachers in the construction of the reform, administrators are
more likely to cultivate teacher buy-in and ensure their participation in the reform.
Ongoing professional development is necessary so that teachers and aides are
sufficiently trained in using instructional techniques but also feel confident about
collecting and analyzing data important to the decision-making aspects of RTI.
Developing the expertise of teachers will contribute to their ability to differentiate
instruction, and deliver interventions with sufficient integrity, duration, and
frequency that students benefit from instruction. How will teachers aid the
construction and implementation of the model? What training will they receive?
How will they assess and implement grade level instruction and intervention? Will
they participate in PLCs? Who will monitor the fidelity and integrity with which they
implement instruction?
Administrators should also build the capacity of the teacher leadership teams
to co-ordinate the change process by coordinating the training, coaching and
evaluating of grade-level teams or PLCs. How will leadership teams be structured?
What training will they receive? How will they train the rest of the grade level team?
How will they evaluate and report teachers’ perceptions of the implementation
effort? Who will they be accountable to in terms of administration?

173
Encourage administrators to provide leadership by coordinating the schedule,
protecting time for intervention, and providing the personnel necessary for
supporting students and teachers with assessment, data-analysis and decision-
making. Who will do the scheduling of RTI time? How does the school protect this
time from pull-outs and changes in schedule? Who will assist teachers in collecting
data and implementing their grade-level structures, and how will the expertise of the
specialists contribute to these practices?
Finally, closely monitor the development of the model and collect data that
contributes towards outcomes of specific practices within the model. Data collected
on teaching and learning will contribute towards implementing the model with
fidelity. Have teaching practices changed or improved? Have student outcomes
improved? Is the model addressing the students it was meant for? Are there students
who are not benefiting? How can we improve the current model?
Conclusion
This study has provided a detailed look at the implementation of RTI from
the educators’ perspectives. While many earlier studies of RTI have examined the
effectiveness of the tiers of intervention with specific student populations, very few
have examined whole-school implementation. While both models aligned themselves
closely with the research basis of the RTI framework, their methods of
implementation were very different. Valley Glen implemented a model that reduced
the cost of special education by providing a full inclusion model where all students
participated in general education yet the lowest achievers received support from the

174
RTI specialists including the RSP teacher, the SDC teacher and a fully trained aide.
El Paseo implemented a structure that reduced the number of referrals and focused
on building the teachers’ capacity for addressing the needs of all their students. Both
sites were able to achieve many of their goals using the RTI model that was
constructed at their site. Their methods of implementation indicate that RTI can be
implemented very differently to achieve results. Full inclusion has not been
examined in literature as a model for RTI, yet proved its effectiveness in this study.
Other contexts, such as El Paseo, may not need to implement RTI thoughout the
school to achieve their results.
Both of these sites identified variables that had influenced implementation
including initial planning, structural decisions, professional development, resources
and leadership. Building the capacity of the reforms utilizing some of these variables
contributed to improvement of each model. Whereas RTI has been identified by
educators in this study as being an effective framework for identifying reading
difficulties, it was also recognized as contributing to improvement for ELL students,
high-achieving students, and average students. While RTI can contribute to the
decision-making regarding special education eligibility, further research is needed to
operationalize the criteria to recognize RTI as an alternative method for diagnosis.
RTI is a framework with much potential. By planning carefully for the
reform, developing a model to fit the context, providing professional development
for implementers, developing the capacities of the personnel, monitoring and
coordinating the fidelity and integrity with which the reform is implemented,

175
educators at other sites can use this data to assist in implementation of this complex
reform. This data will contribute to the growing base of research that underlies the
RTI framework.

176
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.

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.

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2006). IDEA
2004 and response to intervention: Policy considerations and
implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of
Special Education.

Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (2007). Response to Intervention: A practical guide for
every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Berends, M. (2000). Teacher reported effects of New American School Designs:
Exploring relationships to teacher background and school context.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 65-82.

Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro and micro implementation of social policy.
Santa Monica,CA: RAND.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Implementing and sustaining
innovations. Volume 8 of Federal programs supporting educational change.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Berninger, V. W. (2006). Research supported ideas for implementing reauthorized
IDEA with intelligent professional psychological services. Psychology in the
Schools, 43(7), 781-795.

Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership.
Educational Leadership, 62(6), 56

Bodilly, S. J. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development
Corporation’s demonstration phase. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Bodilly, S. J. (2001). New American Schools’ concept of break-the-mold designs:
How designs evolved over time and why (RAND research report).

177
Bradley, R., & Danielson, L. (2002). The office of special education program’s LD
initiative. A context for inquiry and consensus. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 27(4), 186-188.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (2002). Identification of learning
disabilities: research to practice. The LEA series on special education and
disability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to Intervention. Principles
and strategies for effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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 responsiveness-to-
intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The
California School Psychologist, 10, 9-20.

Calhoun, M. B., Al Otaiba, S., Cihak, D., King, A., & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a
peer-mediated progam on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual
first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 169-184.

Case, L., Speece, D. L., & Malloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a Response-to-
Intervention paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis
of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review,
32(4), 447-552.

Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, E. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan Thompson,
S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel
schoolwide reading model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174-188.

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of reading development of
Canadian children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. The Elementary
School Journal, 107(2), 135-142.

Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3
rd
ed.). Auckland,
New Zealand: Heinemann.

178
Coburn, C. E. & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of
teacher professional community in policy implementation. In Honig., M.
(Eds) (2006). New directions in education policy implementation.
Confronting complexity. Albany: NY: State University of New York Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-
305.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying Teacher Education: The Report
of the AERA panel on Research and Teacher Education. Lawrence Erlbaum:
Mahwah, New Jersey.

Cohen, D. K., Fuhrman, S. H., & Mosher, F. (2007). The state of education policy
research. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey.

Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L. & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice. In Cohen, D.
K., Fuhrman, S. H., & Mosher, F. (eds) (2007). The state of education policy
research. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey.

Compton, D. L. (2003). RTI: Its all about the nudge. Paper presented at the
Response-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
www.nrcld.org/html/synposium2003

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk
readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of
decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-
409.

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), 632-638.

Danielson, L. & D. P. Hallahan, (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice, 287-368. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.

179
Datnow, A. (2002). The sustainability of Comprehensive School Reform models in
changing district and state contexts (2005). Education Administration
Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.

Datnow, A. (2004). Happy marriage or uneasy alliance? The relationship between
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) and state accountability systems.
Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 12(1), 113-128.

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

Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the Policy Chain: The co-construction of
Implementation in Comprehensive School Reform. In Honig., M. (Eds)
(2006). New directions in education policy implementation. Confronting
complexity. Albany: NY: State University of New York Press.

Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M.
(2003). Comprehensive School Reform in culturally and linguistically diverse
contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143-170.

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

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending education reform: From
one school to many. London: Routledge Falmer.

Datnow, A., Lasky, S, Stringfield, S, & Teddlie, C. (2005). Journal of Education for
Students Placed At Risk, 10(4), 445-453.

Datnow, A., Lasky, S, Stringfield, S, & Teddlie, C. (2006). Integrating educational
systems for successful reform in diverse contexts. Cambridge University
Press: New York.

Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Conceptualizing Policy Implementation: Large-scale
reform in an era of complexity. Chapter prepared for the AERA Handbook on
Educational Policy Research.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data. How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Center on Educational Governance: University of Southern
California.

180
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.
Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.

Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, Y. (2001). Using curriculum-based
measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning
disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-523.

Denton, C. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers:
possibilities for change. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating
reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229-251). Baltimore MD:
York Press.

Department of Education (2003). Office of Special Education Programs Data
Analysis System.

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

Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-113.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. (http://www.nap.edu).

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “Professional Learning Community”? Schools as
Learning Communities, 61(8), 6-11.

Elmore, R. (1996). Staff development and instructional improvement in Community
School District No. , New York City. Cambridge MA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, Harvard University.

Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice and
reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA; RAND.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods. In Research in Teaching and Learning
(Volume 2). A project of the American Educational Research Association.
New York, NY: Macmillan.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-
1055.

181
Ferguson, R. F. & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of
Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable:
performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington D.C.:
Brookings Institution.

Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative
approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some
questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-330.

Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. A., Fuchs, L., & Vaughn, S. R. (2005). Multi-tiered
reading instruction: Linking general education and special education.
Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know (2005).
International Dyslexia Association.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., & Olson, R.
(2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation.
In R. Bradley, L. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz. S. E., Reid-Lyon,
G., Foorman, B. R., Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Intelligent
testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(4), 186-203.

Fletcher, J. M., & Satz, P. (1979). Unitary deficit hypothesis of reading disabilities:
Has Vellutino led us astray? The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(3), 22-
26.

Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Lieberman, I. Y.,
Fowler, A., Francis, D. J., Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994).
Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low
achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 1-18.

Flugum, K. R. & Reschly, D. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and
outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1-14.

Foorman, B. R., Breier, J. I., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Interventions aimed at
improving reading success: An evidence-based approach. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 24(2.3), 613-639.

Foorman, B. R., Carlson, C. D., & Santi, K. L. (2007). Classroom reading instruction
and teacher knowledge in the primary grades. In Haager, D., Klingner, J., &
Vaughn, S. (Eds.) (2007). Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response-
to-Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

182
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Lynn, A. (1996). Relation of
phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two
approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match designs. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 639-652.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P.
(1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure
in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Foorman, B. R., & Nixon, S. M. (2006). The influence of public policy on reading
research and practice. Topics of Language Disorders, 26(2), 157-172.

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-
group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 202-211.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Reid-Lyon, G., Shaywitz, B. A., &
Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD:
IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(2), 98-108.

Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kiefer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical
guidelines for the education of English-language learners: Research based
recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth,
NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M.
(1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A
longitudinal individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 3-17.

Franke, M., Carpenter, T., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’
generative change: A follow up study of professional development in
mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653-690.

Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 191-202.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about Responsiveness to
Intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 22(2), 129-136.

183
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D. D., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). National research center on
learning disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification
issues. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 189-195.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What,
why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). What’s “special” about special education? Phi
Delta Kappan, 76, 522-530.

Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for
reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(4), 204-219.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey, M. W., & Roberts, P. H. (2001). Is
“learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-
analysis of reading difficulties between low achievers with and without a
label. Paper written for the Office of Special Education, and presented at the
OSEP’s LD Summit conference. Washington, DC. (http//www.air-
dc.org/ldsummit/download/Fuchs%20Final%2008-10-01pdf)

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for
reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide
curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the
challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.

Fuchs L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Karns, K. (1995). General
educators’ specialized adaptation for students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying
construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
25, 33-45.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-
intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for learning disabilities
construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.

184
Fuhrman, S. H., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1988). Research on educational reform:
Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2),
237-257.

Fullan, M. (2007). Educational reform as continuous improvement. In Hawley, W.
D., & Rollie, D. L. (Eds) (2007). The keys to effective schools. Educational
reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2
nd
Ed.). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces. Probing the depths of educational reform.
London: Falmer.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). What’s worth fighting for? Working together
for your school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction
implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), j335-397.

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

Gersten, R., Baker, S., Marks, S. U., & Smith, S. B. (1999). Effective instruction for
learning disabled or at-risk English language learners: An integrative
synthesis of the empirical and professional knowledge bases. Keys to
Successful Learning Summit. National Institutes of Child and Human
Development: Washington D. C.

Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention:
Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology
Review, 36, 526-540.

Greenwood, C. R., Kamps, D., Terry, B. J., & Linebarger, D. L. (2007). Primary
intervention: a means of preventing Special Education? In Haager, D.,
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.) (2007). Evidence-Based Reading Practices
for Response-to-Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to
the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P.
Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilties: Reseach to Practice
(p. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

185
Grimes, J. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special
education identification, service and exiting decision making. Paper written
for the Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.

Grimes, J., Kurns, S., & Tilly III, D. (2006). Sustainability: an enduring commitment
to success. School Psychologist Review, 35, 224-244.

Gross, N., Giaquinta, & Bernsterin, (1971). Implementing organizational
innovations. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for
teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach.
American Journal of Education, 108, 1-29.

Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Does additional
instructional time make a difference for most at-risk first graders? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115-125.

Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for
Response to Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.

Haager, D. S., & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English
language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: student and teacher
outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 235-250.

Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of
IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment
methods. Psychology in Schools, 43(7), 753-770.

Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2001). Learning disabilities: Historical
perspectives. Paper written for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.
S. Department of Education, and presented at OSEP’s LD Summit
Conference, Washington, D.C.

Hartman, W. T., & Fay, T. A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support
teams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Educational Finance, 21, 555-580.

Hawley, W. D., & Rollie, D. L. (Eds) (2007). The keys to effective schools.
Educational reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

186
Hawley, W. D., & Sykes, G. (2007). Continuous school improvement. In Hawley,
W. D., & Rollie, D. L. (Eds) (2007). The keys to effective schools.
Educational reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (1982). Placing children in special
education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: a discussion of
foundational and future Responsiveness-to-Intervention research. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 137-146.

Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., & Towner, A. (2004).
Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal
model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 17(2), 247-264.

Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and
Opportunities for the field. In Honig., M. (Eds) (2006a). New directions in
education policy implementation. Confronting complexity. Albany: NY: State
University of New York Press.

Honig, M (2006b). Building policy from practices: Implementation as organizational
learning. In Honig., M. (Eds) (2006). New directions in education policy
implementation. Confronting complexity. Albany: NY: State University of
New York Press.

Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence. How schools strategically
manage multiple external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.

Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (1999). Educational niche picking in a hostile
environment. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 213-226.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school
improvement works. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Huff, L. (2005). President’s message. NASP Communique, 33, 2-3.

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.

187
Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B. C., Gustafson, J. K., Allison, R., &
Stumme (2007). The Heartland Area Education Agency 11 problem-solving
approach: An overview and lessons learned. In Jimerson, S., Burns, M. K.,
& VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds.). Response To Intervention: The Science and
Practice of Assessment and Intervention. New York, NY: Springer Science
and Business Media.

INDIVIDUAL WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2004, PL. 108-446.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Handbook of
Resopnse to Intervention: The science and practice of assessment and
intervention. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D., Good, R. H., Harn, B. A. (2001). The use of fluency-
based measures in early identification and evaluation of intervention efficacy
in schools. In Wolf, M. (eds). Dyslexia, Fluency and the Brain (p.307-332).
Timonium, MA: York Press.

Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J.
(2008). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 101-114.

Kavale, K. A., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Hale, J. B. (2005). Implementation of
IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment
methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753-770.

Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to
intervention the answer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525-562.

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

Kavale, K. A., Hodnack, J., Mostert, M. P., & Schmied, C. M. (2003). The feasibility
of a responsiveness to intervention approach for the identification of specific
learning disability: A psychometric atlernative. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness to
Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

188
Klingner, J. K. (2004). The Science of Professional Development. The Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 248-254.

Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S, Pilonieta, P,& Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and
facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children,
69(4), 411-429).

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who
struggle with reading: language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39(2), 108-128.

Klingner, J. K., Cramer, E., & Harry, B. (2006). Challenges in the implementation of
Success for All by four urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 106, 333-
349.

Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Response to intervention: consideration for research and
systems change. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 638-651.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gicklling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R. (1999). High versus
low implementation of instructional support teams: a case for maintaining
program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 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(1), 16-26.

Kovaleski, J. F., Tucker, J., & Stevens, L. (1996). Bridging special and regular
education. The Pennsylvania initiative. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 44-
47.

Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning
to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6 (6), 8-17.

Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P. T. (2006). The response to
intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 390-399.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Education and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom
practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.

189
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives
on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lovett, M. W., & Steinbach, K. A. (1997). The effectiveness of remedial programs
for reading disabled children of different ages: Is there decreased benefit for
older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(3), 189-210.

Lyon, G. R. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 6, 54-77.

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K.,
Wood, F. B., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning
disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., R. A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr.
(Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (p. 259-287).
Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy
Institute.

Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C., (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological
considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning
Disabilities 30(6), 578-588.

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., Lau, M., & Muyskens, P. (2007). Implementation of the problem-
solving model in the Minnapolis Public Schools. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K.
Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of Response to
Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention (pp.
279-288). New York, NY: Springer.

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.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of
response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as
a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525-531.

190
Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part two: It’s
about the what, the how well, and the why. Psychology in Schools, 43(8),
829-834.

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., &
Schatschneider, C. (2005). An evaluation of two reading interventions
derived from diverse models. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182.

McBride, G. M., Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (2004). Response to response to
intervention legislation: The future of school psychologists. The School
Psychologist, 58, 86-91.

McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. R. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations
of naming speed, phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and
poor readers: A test of the double-deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 323-339.

McDonnell, L. M. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1982). Educational policy and the role of
the states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

McDougall, D., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2007). Inside the black box of
school reform: Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results
schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
54(1), 51-89.

McIntosh, A. S., Graves, A., & Gersten, R. (2007). The effects of response to
intervention on literacy development in multiple language settings. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 30, 197-212.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro
perspectives, micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19, 11-16.

McLaughlin, M. W. & Berman, P. (1978). Macro and Micro Implementation. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and
learning. Stanford, CA Center for Research on the Context of Secondary
School Teaching, Stanford University.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work
of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

191
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to
nonresponders: an experimental field trial of identification and intervention
methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445-463.

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 (2
nd
ed., Rev.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Messick, S. (1984). Assessment in context: Appraising student performance in
relation to instructional quality. Educational Researcher, 13(3), 3-8.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (1997). Introduction to special issue of SSR:
Components of effective reading instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading,
1(3), 187-189.

Murphy, J. R. (1971). Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementing federal
education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 41(1), 35-63.

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2007). Contextualizing learner-centered
principles for teachers and teaching. In W. D. Hawley, & D. L. Rollie, (Eds),
The keys to effective schools. Educational reform as continuous improvement
(p. 13-31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Chicago, IL:
Riverside Publishing.

National Center for Learning Disabilities (2003). Early help for struggling learners:
A national survey of parents and educators.
(http://www.ld.org/press/PR2003/survey_findings.pdf).

National Center for Learning Disabilities (2004). No Child Left Behind and students
with specific learning disabilities. (http://www.ld.org/advocacy/nelb-
statement.cfm).

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

192
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction.
(http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm).

National Research Council

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. A
report to the public educators by the Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001, PL. 107-110, 115 stat. 1425 (2002).

Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the form has substance: treatment
plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 32-39.

O’Connor, R. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and
first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 43-54.

O’Connor, R. E. (2003). Tiers o fintervention in kindergarten through third grade.
Presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. (2003). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten
though third grade. Paper presented at the National Research Center on
Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas
City, MO.

O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2001). Total Awareness:
Reducing the severity of reading disability. Presented at the American
Educational Research Conference, Seattle, WA.

O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K., & Fulmer, D (2005). Tiers of intervention in
kindergarten to third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532-538.

Odden, A. (2000). The cost of sustaining educational change through comprehensive
school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433-438.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

193
Population Resource Center, 2000, Executive Summary: Status of Children in
America.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002). A new era:
Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington,
DC: Author.

Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Ikeda, M. J., & Gustafson, J. (2005). Evaluating the quality and
responsiveness of reading interventions developed through problem solving.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 395-410.

Reschly, D. J. (1996). Minority MMR overrepresentation and special education
reform. Exceptional Children, 54, 316-323

Reschly, D. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention,
secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilties, 38,
510-515.

Reschly, D. J., Hosp, J. L., & Schmied, C. M. (2003). And miles to go …: State SLD
requirements and authoritative recommendations. The National Center on
Learning Disabilities. (http://www.nrcld.org).

Reschly, D.J. & Starkweather, A. R. (1997). Evaluation of an alternative Special
Education Assessment and classification program in the Minneapolis Public
Schools. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable school
reform. Daedalus, 127(4), 89-118.

Sanders, W. L. & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future student achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennesee Value Added
Research and Assessment Center.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change
course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Saunders, W. M., Foorman, B. R., & Carlson, C. D. (2006). Is a separate block of
time for oral English language development in programs for English learners
needed? The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 181-198.

Scanlon, D. M., Vellutino, F. R., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. (2005).
Severe reading difficulties: can they be prevented? A comparison of
prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13, 209-227.

194
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2003). Issues in the identification of learning
disabilities. In T.E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds). Identification and
Assessment: Advances in Learning and Behavior Disabilities (pp. 1-36).
Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.

Sebring, P., & Bryk, A. (2002). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago.
Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.

Shaywitz, S. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 275(5), 98-104.

Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.

Siegel, L. S. (1997). The discrepancy formula: it’s use and abuse. In B. K. Shapiro,
P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific Reading Disability: a View of
the Spectrum, 123-137. Timonium, Maryland: Timonium Press.

Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, E. A., &
Kame’enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing Response to Intervention: A longitudinal
study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 158-173.

Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Stoolmiller, M., Coyne, M. D., & Harn, B.
(2003). Accelerating growth and maintaining proficiency: A two-year
intervention study of kindergarten and first-grade children at-risk for reading
difficulties. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading
difficulties (p.197-280). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Slavin, R. E. (2008). Evidence-based reform in education: Which evidence counts?
Educational Research, 37(1), 47-50.

Slavin, R. E. (2004). Built to Last. Long-term maintenance of Success for All.
Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 61-66.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for
policy and practice. Available: http://www.successforall.net.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2000). Roots & wings: Effects of whole-school
reform on student achievement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 5, 109-136.

195
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2002). Lessons from the field of school reform: A
review of Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing
reading difficulties in young children. Report by the commission on
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Research Council
Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Datnow, A. (2007). Research in, research out: The
role of research in the development and scale-up of Success for All. In
Cohen, Fuhrman, & Mosher (Eds) (pp.261-280). The state of education
policy research. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (2005). Knowledge to Support the Teaching
of Reading: Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco, CA.

Spillane, J. P. (1998). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational
agency in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31-57.

Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand educational
policy. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spillane, J., Reiser, B., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and
cognition: The role of human, social and distributed cognition in framing
policy implementation. In Honig., M. (Eds) (2006a). New directions in
education policy implementation. Confronting complexity. Albany: NY: State
University of New York Press.

Spillane, J., Reiser, B., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72(3), 387-431.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus
of reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 154-177.

Stanovich, K E., (1989). Has the learning disabilities field lost its intelligence?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 487-492.

Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations
and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.

196
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profiles of children
with reading difficulties: A regression based test of phonological core
variable difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.

Stein, M. K., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H (2002). Reform ideas that travel far afield:
The two cultures of reform in New York City’s District #2 and San Diego.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in
multicultural, multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland
County. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and
Excellence.

Stringfield, S., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. (Eds.) (1996). Bold plans for school
restructuring: The New American School Designs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., &
Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading
disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39,
469-518.

Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers
College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.

Supovitz, J. A. & Taylor, B. S. (2005). Systemic education evaluation: Evaluating
the impact of systemwide reform in education. Journal of Evaluation, 26(2),
204-230.

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-
solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School
Psychology Review, 29(3), 443-461.

Tilly, D. (2003). Heartland area education agency’s evolution from four to three
tiers: Our journey – our results. Paper presented at the National Research
Center for Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium,
Kansas City, MO.

197
Tognieri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington,
DC: Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Torgesen, J. D. (1997). Instructional interventions for children with learning
disabilities. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific
reading disability: a view of the spectrum, 197-220). Timonium, Maryland:
Timonium Press.

Torgesen, J. D. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in
reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S.,
& Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe
reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two
instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.

Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. W. (2001). Principles of fluency
instruction: relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf
(Ed), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain (pp. 65-92). Timonium, MD: York
Press.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Approaches to the
prevention and remediation of phonologically based reading disabilities. In B.
Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia:
implication for early intervention (pp. 287-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997).
Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability
to the growth of word-reading skills in second – to fifth-grade children.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 161-185.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Lindamood, P., Rose, E., &
Conway, T. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with
phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.

U.S. Department of Education (2003). National Symposium on Learning Disabilities
in English Language Learners, Symposium Summary.

198
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and
possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 23, 339-361.

Vaughn, S. (2003). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to
achieve acceptable prevention outcomes. Presented at the National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium,
Kansas City, MO.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response-to-Intervention
as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 68(4), 391-409.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D.,
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Cardenas-Hagan, E. & Francis, D. J. (2006a).
Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language
learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(1), 56-73.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D.,
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Cardenas-Hagan, E. & Francis, D. J. (2006b).
Effectiveness of an English intervention for first grade English language
learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal 107(2),
153-180.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D.,
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J.
M., (2006c). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and English intervention
for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American
Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 449-487.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Sipay, E. R. (1997). 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 (p.347-379). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

199
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M.B.
(1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated
poor readers: early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between
cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading
disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-630.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to
Intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and
without reading difficulties: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-
grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39(2), 157-169.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading
intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of
Learning Disabilties, 41(2), 126-142.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4
th
ed.). San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.

What’s Working: Data driven decision-making in the schools (2007). Introduce RTI
through long-term team strategy. West Palm Beach, FL: LRP Publications.

Willis, J. O., & Dumont, R. (2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to
intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled? Psychology in the
Schools, 43(8), 901-908.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson (3
rd

ed.). Itasca. IL: Riverside.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yonezawa, S., & Datnow, A. (1999). Supporting multiple reform designs in a
culturally and linguistically diverse school district. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 4, 101-126.

Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning
disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets? Learning Disability Quarterly,
28, 125-128.

Zach, L. J. (2005). Déjà vu all over again: The current controversy over the
identification of learning disability. The School Psychologist, 59, 151-155.

200
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS
Note: Each interview will begin with a brief explanation of the study to the
participant and I bit about my background. I will explain that although the interview
will be tape recorded, their identify and responses are entirely confidential. I will
also explain that if they would prefer to say something off the record, I will shut off
the tape recorder.

Background

1. How long have you been teaching at the school? What grades have you taught?

What structures, resources and training have contributed to implementation of
RTI at this site?

The RTI framework utilizes evidence-based instructional methods and interventions,
consistent assessment and monitoring of all students and data-driven decision-
making.

2. Were teachers involved in any of the decision-making processes to implement
these practices?

3. Have you received training in any of these areas that has prepared you for
implementing this approach?
a) Please describe the training.
b) Who provided the training (site or district)?
c) Has it been enough? Why or why not?

4. Another key component of the framework is a focus on collaboration. Does this
school’s model have a collaborative focus?
a) How often do you meet with teachers or administrators to focus your
efforts on the specific teaching and learning practices of RTI?
b) How do you structure this time?
c) How does this collaboration contribute towards implementation of RTI?

5. Has there been support from leadership and administration during the
implementation process?

6. Have you felt any impact from state or federal guidelines?

7. Have you observed other teachers during instructional time? If not, would you
like to?

201
8. Does anyone observe you in the classroom while you are implementing these
practices? If yes, how often? If no, would you like to have someone come in and
give you feedback?

9. How do you feel about the structure and effectiveness of the tiers?

10. How are instructional methods and interventions selected?

11. Who provides small group instruction? Where? How often?

12. Are enough staff members to implement the model effectively?

13. Is there enough space to implement the tiers effectively? How is this done?

14. What does the rest of the class do while the identified students receive
intervention?

15. What sort of measures are used for progress monitoring? (Curriculum-based
measures/classroom-based assessment, student portfolios, teacher observations,
criterion-referenced standard achievement measures)
How are these measures utilized?

16. Have there been sufficient materials provided for implementation? (professional
development, evidence-based instruction, interventions, progress monitoring,
evaluation, record keeping)

17. Is there increased documentation with this framework?

18. With what specific areas of implementation would you like to have support?

How do educators perceive the successes and challenges of RTI its ability to
impact students?

19. Has implementing evidence-based teaching methods improved academic
standards for all students?
a). Have you modified your teaching methods and how much flexibility do
you have in your classroom?
b) How do you feel about providing differentiated instruction and specific
instructional interventions?
c) Is there anyone that can give you extra support in this area?

20. Do you think that the type and amount of assessments that are administered to
monitor how students have responded to instruction is appropriate? Why or why not?

202
21. How confident do you feel about using data to drive decision-making?
a). Does data-driven decision-making contribute to more effective
identification and intervention?

22. Can this framework be used as an alternative method of diagnosing a Learning
Disability? How?

23. Can this framework address the needs of all students?
a) Can RTI address the needs of students with Learning Disabilities and
those at-risk for learning difficulties? How?
b) Can RTI address the needs of English Language Learners or those from
diverse backgrounds who are underachieving?
c) Does the model impact students without difficulties?
d) Do GATE students benefit from RTI? How?

24. What are the challenges that RTI faces in the classroom?

25. Do you feel confident about implementing RTI?

26. Do you feel prepared to address the range of learning abilities?

27. Are you able to identify individual weaknesses and prescribe the appropriate
instructional methods?

28. Do you think the RTI initiative will last? Please explain why or why not.

What other factors (e.g. leadership) have helped or hindered implementation of
RTI?

29. Can you think of anything else that you would want to share that might help me
better understand the factors that have contributed to or hindered implementation of
RTI?

203
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PRINCIPAL
Background

1. How long have you been a principal at the school? How long have you been in
this district?

What structures, resources and training may contribute to effective
implementation of RTI at this site?

The RTI framework utilizes evidence-based instructional methods and interventions,
consistent assessment and monitoring of all students and data-driven decision-
making.

2. Were you involved in any of the decision-making processes to implement these
practices?
a) Were the teachers involved in any decision-making regarding the
approach?

3. Have you received training in any of these areas that has prepared you for
implementing this approach?
a) Please describe the training.
b) Who provided the training (site or district)?
c) Has it been enough? Why or why not?

4. How did the district and school prepare the teachers for the implementation of
RTI?

5. Another key component of the framework is a focus on collaboration. What
structures were put in place to develop this component?
a) Do you meet with administrators, teachers or a leadership team to discuss
specific practices?

6. Has there been support from leadership and administration during the
implementation process?

7. Have you felt any impact from state or federal levels?

8. Has the school developed a method for monitoring the fidelity of instruction and
interventions?

9. How do you feel about the structure and effectiveness of the tiers?

204
10. How are instructional methods and interventions selected?

11. Who provides small group instruction? Where? How often?

12. Are enough staff members to implement the model effectively?

13. Is there enough space to implement the tiers effectively? How is this done?

14. What sort of measures are used for progress monitoring? (Curriculum-based
measures/classroom-based assessment, student portfolios, teacher observations,
criterion-referenced standard achievement measures).

15. Have there been sufficient materials provided for implementation? (professional
development, evidence-based instruction, interventions, progress monitoring,
evaluation, record keeping)

16. Is there increased documentation with this framework?

17. Does the school receive enough resources to effectively implement this reform?

18. What specific areas of implementation do you think might need more support?

How do educators perceive the successes and challenges of RTI its ability to
impact students?

19. Has implementing evidence-based teaching methods improved academic
standards for all students?

20. Do you think that the type and amount of assessments that are administered to
monitor how students have responded to instruction is appropriate? Why or why not?

21. Does data-driven decision-making contribute to more effective identification and
intervention?

22. Can this framework be used as an alternative method of diagnosing a Learning
Disability? How?

23. Can this framework address the needs of all students?
a) Can RTI address the needs of students with Learning Disabilities and
those at-risk for learning difficulties? How?
b) Can RTI address the needs of English Language Learners or those from
diverse backgrounds who are underachieving?
c) Does the model impact students without difficulties?

205
d) Do GATE students benefit from RTI? How?

24. What are the challenges facing implementation?

25. Do you feel confident about implementing RTI in the school?

26. Is there ongoing monitoring of RTI implementation?

26. Do you think the RTI initiative will last? Please explain why or why not.

What other factors (e.g. leadership) have helped or hindered implementation of
RTI?

27. Can you think of anything else that you would want to share that might help me
better understand the factors that have contributed to or hindered implementation of
RTI?

206
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
Background

1. How long have you been a district administrator? Please describe your role in the
district?

What structures, resources and training may contribute to effective
implementation of RTI?

2. Why did the school district decide to adopt the RTI framework?

3. Can you describe the process for developing the model being implemented in the
school district?

4. What role did you have?

5. Were administrators or teachers involved in developing the model that is being
implemented?

6. What sort of training or professional development did the staff receive to assist
them in implementing these practices?

7. A key component of the framework is a focus on collaboration. What structures
were put in place to develop this component?
a) Do you meet with administrators, teachers or a leadership team to discuss
specific practices?

8. Has the state provided any level of support for the reform?

9. Has the federal government provided support for the reform?

10. Has the school developed a method for monitoring the fidelity of instruction and
interventions?

11. How do you feel about the structure and effectiveness of the tiers?

12. How are instructional methods and interventions selected?

13. Who provides small group instruction? Where? How often?

14. Are enough staff members to implement the model effectively?

207
15. Is there enough space to implement the tiers effectively? How is this done?

16. What sort of measures are used for progress monitoring? (Curriculum-based
measures/classroom-based assessment, student portfolios, teacher observations,
criterion-referenced standard achievement measures).

17. Have there been sufficient materials provided for implementation? (professional
development, evidence-based instruction, interventions, progress monitoring,
evaluation, record keeping)

18. Is there increased documentation with this framework?

19. Does the school receive enough resources to effectively implement this reform?

20. What specific areas of implementation do you think might need more support?

How do educators perceive the successes and challenges of RTI its ability to
impact students?

21. Has implementing evidence-based teaching methods improved academic
standards for all students?

22. Do you think that the type and amount of assessments that are administered to
monitor how students have responded to instruction is appropriate? Why or why not?

23. Does data-driven decision-making contribute to more effective identification and
intervention?

24. Can this framework be used as an alternative method of diagnosing a Learning
Disability? How?

25. Can this framework address the needs of all students?
a) Can RTI address the needs of students with Learning Disabilities and
those at-risk for learning difficulties? How?
b) Can RTI address the needs of English Language Learners or those from
diverse backgrounds who are underachieving?
c) Does the model impact students without difficulties?
d) Do GATE students benefit from RTI? How?

26. What are the challenges facing implementation?

27. Do you feel confident about implementing RTI in the schools?

208
28. Is ongoing monitoring of RTI implementation?

29. Do you think the RTI initiative will last? Please explain why or why not.

What other factors (e.g. leadership) have helped or hindered implementation of
RTI?

30. Can you think of anything else that you would want to share that might help me
better understand the factors that have contributed to or hindered implementation of
RTI?

209
APPENDIX D: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Date: School:

Time: Teachers present:

Observation List Notes/Comments
Discussion centers around:

• Examination of student work

• Examination of assessment data

• Instructional decisions

• Intervention or classroom strategies

• Student groupings/tiers

• Other topics (miscellaneous)

210
APPENDIX E: INFORMATION SHEET AND INFORMED CONSENT
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall Room 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

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

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Response-to-Intervention: How will implementation be
constructed at this school site?

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cindy Newman
Jacobs, M.A., a Ph.D. candidate, with faculty advisor Amanda Datnow, Ph.D., from
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California because
you are a teacher implementing practices aligned with the Response-to-Intervention
(RTI) framework. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because
you have had experience with this school reform. You must be at least 18 years of
age to participate. A total of 12 subjects will be selected from your school. This
study is being conducted solely as a Doctoral study under the auspices of the Rossier
School of Education. Your participation is voluntary. Please take as much time as
you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will take a detailed look at how RTI is being implemented at different
school sites with an emphasis on how educators construct and perceive the particular
model at their school.

Completion and return of the questionnaire; response to the interview questions
or allowing the researcher to observe you, will constitute consent to participate
in this research project.

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

211
Participate in a 30-45 minute interview responding to a limited number of questions.
The questions are designed to probe your opinions regarding the implementation of
RTI practices at your school. The following are examples of the types of questions
that will be asked in your interview:

1. Have you received any training that has prepared you for implementing this
approach?
2. Who provides small group instruction?
3. Is there increased documentation with this framework?
4. Can RTI address the needs of those ‘at-risk” for learning difficulties?

Participants will also be observed during one or two team/collaborative meetings.
The data collected during the discussion of RTI practices during these meetings will
also contribute to the findings of the study.

To ensure accurate data collection for subsequent review, it is planned that all
interviews will be audiotape recorded. Should you object to the audio-tape recording
of your interview, then it will not be recorded and hand note-taking will be used to
record your responses. It will still be possible for you to participate in this study. You
will not be identified by name in connection to any of the data collection.

The interview will be transcribed by an outside agency. The transcriber will not have
access to your identity and will have to sign a confidentiality agreement, stating s/he
will not disclose any information related to the research without your consent.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is a degree of inconvenience associated with participation in this study with
regard to the loss of personal time. Additionally, there is the potential that some
questions may evoke a degree of discomfort. However, no question will be asked
that attempts to impinge on your right to privacy. You are not required to answer any
question you are uncomfortable discussing. At no time should you feel the need to
continue with the interview if you feel you would like to end it.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from this research study. However, this study may
provide a rich description of the successes and challenges of implementation at this
site. When this study is completed, the data should contribute to ongoing
improvement of the model implemented in this school district as well as for broader
implementation of the framework.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for participating in this research study. However, you
will receive a token gift such as a gift card (value not to exceed $15-00) for your

212
participation in this study. This token gift will be provided to you at the end of the
interview. You will receive the gift whether or not you complete the interview.

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.

Data for this study will be gathered through teacher interviews, observations and
document collection. All data collected including interview notes, audio recording
tapes, transcriptions, observation notes and documents will use pseudonyms as
identifiers. No actual teacher names will be used.

Interviews will provide the primary source for data. Only members of the research
team will have access to the data associated with the study. You will have the right to
review and edit audiotapes from your interview. All data collected including
transcribed interviews, field notes, observation forms and documents related to RTI
will be stored in a locked cabinet for three years after the completion of the study at
the home of the principal investigator. The office in my home is secure and access is
strictly limited. Three years after the completion of the study all data will be deleted
or destroyed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identify. If recordings will be
used for educational purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised.

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

213
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Cindy Newman Jacobs, Principal Investigator
(949) 280-4900, email: springyank2@cox,net

Amanda, Datnow, Faculty Advisor, University of Southern California
Waite Phillips Hall, Room 901E, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038, (213) 740-3443

____________________________________
Name of Subject

____________________________________ ___________________________
Signature of Subject Date

214
APPENDIX F: RECRUITMENT FLYER

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cindy
Newman-Jacobs, M.A., with faculty advisor Amanda Datnow, Ph.D., from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study will
examine educators’ perspectives regarding implementation of Response-to-
Intervention practices to determine how the reform has been constructed at this
school site.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you have
had experience with these practices. A total of 12 subjects will be selected from your
school and your participation is purely voluntary. Teachers will be interviewed
individually for one 30-45 minute session. Interviews will be planned at your
convenience.
While research has acknowledged that teachers are key to the implementation
of educational reforms, it has largely failed to capitalize on your capacity to
contribute to these school reforms. It’s about time that teachers’ become co-

Teachers Needed for
Research Study

215
constructors of knowledge and curriculum and contribute to the effective
implementation of policies!

If you are interested in participating, please email me to let me know.
Thanks in advance, Cindy Newman-Jacobs
springyank2@cox.net (949) 289-4900

216
APPENDIX G: CODE LIST WITH FREQUENCIES AND NUMBER OF
SUBJECTS RESPONDING AT EL PASEO SCHOOL
Codes / Frequencies / Subjects responding
Codes Qty Response Qty Cases
____________________________________________________________________
1. Alternative method for LD identification 13 9
2. Assessment criteria 27 9
3. Beneficial across student population 2 2
4. Benefits of lower student teacher ratio 8 6
5. Bottom up or not 16 8
6. Budget impacts support 3 3
7. Building capacity 11 4
8. Co-construction 17 11
9. Collaborate with parents 1 1
10. Collaborative time 7 4
11. Data-based decision making 43 13
12. Developmental factor 7 5
13. Diagnostic prescriptive 2 1
14. Differentiating instruction 13 7
15. District support 14 8
16. Documentation data 5 5
17. Evidence-based instructional methods 2 2
18. Examining instructional practices 6 6
19. Fluid groupings 4 3
20. GATE students 5 4
21. Identifiable goals 4 1
22. Impact on ELLs 10 8
23. Impacts 'at risk' students 4 4
24. Inconsistent implementation 15 3
25. Initial planning 10 4
26. Insufficient leadership support 14 4
27. Insufficient training 9 4
28. Lack of resources 3 3
29. Mixing it up 4 4
30. Monitoring fidelity 8 4
31. NCLB 6 5
32. Needs based 11 8
33. No Federal support 3 2

217
34. Ongoing improvement 44 11
35. Ongoing support 10 6
36. Open Court 14 7
37. Parent involvement 1 1
38. Partnering for implementation 3 3
39. Planning curriculum and instruction 12 4
40. PLC and collaborative processes 43 11
41. Policy implementation flaws 6 6
42. Prevention 4 4
43. Principal buy-in 3 3
44. Professional development 15 8
45. Progress monitoring 16 8
46. Refining RTI model 2 1
47. Regular and special ed collaboration 5 4
48. Regular Ed students 3 3
49. Rigorous standards 1 1
50. Scaffolding groups 22 7
51. Scheduling demands 19 9
52. Spatial demands 7 6
53. State standards 17 9
54. State support 2 2
55. Structure development 23 8
56. Sufficient resources 4 2
57. Sufficient staff support 2 2
58. Support from leadership 18 9
59. Support from other personal 32 12
60. Systems focus 7 3
61. Teacher and leadership training 37 12
62. Teacher buy-in 25 8
63. Teacher decision-making 15 8
64 Teacher observation 6 5
65. Teacher reflection 4 3
66. Teacher resistance 7 4
67. Teacher trust and ownership 11 4
68. Time demands 19 11
69. Traditional methods failings 3 2
70. Union issues 2 2
____________________ __________
Total: 70 771

218
APPENDIX G: CODE LIST WITH FREQUENCIES AND NUMBER OF
SUBJECTS RESPONDING AT VALLEY GLEN SCHOOL
Codes / Frequencies / Subjects responding
Codes Qty Response Qty Cases
___________________________________________________________________
1. Alternative method for LD identification 17 8
2. Assessment criteria 37 13
3. Beneficial across student population 11 6
4. Benefits of lower student teacher ratio 5 4
5. Bottom up or not 12 5
6. Budget impacts support 69 13
7. Building capacity 10 3
8. Change in leadership 3 1
9. Co-construction 21 8
10. Data and decision-making 46 12
11. Developmental factor 3 2
12. Diagnostic prescriptive 1 1
13. DIBELS 16 8
14. Differentiating instruction 17 3
15. District support 14 7
16. Documentation data 7 5
17. Double and triple dipped 13 9
18. Early intervention and prevention 3 2
19. Evidence-based instructional methods 8 5
20. Examining instructional practices 1 1
21. Fluid groupings 10 8
22. GATE students 20 10
23. Goals 6 3
24. Impact of growing population 2 2
25. Impact on ELLs 8 7
26. Impacts 'at risk' students 8 6
27. Initial planning 13 5
28. Insufficient leadership support 5 2
29. Insufficient staff 7 6
30. Insufficient training 2 2
31. Lack of resources 37 12
32. Mixing it up 5 3
33. Monitoring fidelity 21 8

219
34. NCLB 2 1
35. Needs based 19 9
36. Ongoing improvement 16 8
37. Open Court 17 8
38. Outcomes 2 2
39. Parent buy-in 8 6
40. Parent involvement 3 1
41. Partnering for implementation 5 3
42. Planning curriculum and instruction 8 6
43. PLC and collaborative processes 39 12
44. Principal buy-in 6 4
45. Professional development 9 5
46. Progress monitoring 9 7
47. Refining RTI model 1 1
48. Regular and special ed collaboration 5 3
49. Regular Ed students 1 1
50. Scaffolding groups 25 12
51. Scheduling demands 4 3
52. Spatial demands 4 4
53. Staff professionalism 6 3
54. State standards 6 4
55. State support 8 5
56. Strong leadership 5 3
57. Structure development 44 12
58. Support for model 11 7
59. Support from leadership 30 13
60. Support from other personal 23 10
61. Teacher and leadership training 51 13
62. Teacher buy-in 27 8
63. Teacher decision-making 19 11
64 Teacher observation 10 4
65. Teacher reflection 3 2
66. Teacher resistance 11 7
67. Teacher trust and ownership 6 6
68. Teacher workload 19 10
69. Time demands 9 4
70. Traditional methods failings 8 5
71. Union issues 1 1
72. Workload 1 1
__________________ _____________
Total: 72 939

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigated educators' perspectives regarding the implementation of Response-to-Intervention (RTI), a complex school reform being introduced to monitor the achievement of all students, in particular, students at-risk for learning difficulties. The study documented the construction of the RTI reform at two sites to compare the multiple structures, roles, resources and training that influenced implementation and the way in which each model developed according to the particular context. The study also examined educators' perceived effectiveness of the reform and the validity of RTI as an alternative approach to identifying Learning Disabilities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Key leverage points for improving educational outcomes of black male students: Response to intervention as an effective strategy to support students in general education: An evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Internationalizing education: a study of the impact of implementing an international program on an urban elementary school

PDF

Examining approaches to implementing Responsive Classroom within international schools

PDF

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

PDF

The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?

PDF

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

PDF

The effects of a reading fluency intervention on the reading outcomes of middle school students with severe reading disabilities

PDF

A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements

PDF

Inside out: teacher factors that assist in the facilitation of the implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders in an urban school

PDF

Teacher education programs and data driven decision making: are we preparing our preservice teachers to be data and assessment literate?

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: a case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Jacobs, Cindy Newman (author)

Core Title An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Psychology)

Publication Date 07/28/2008

Defense Date 06/13/2008

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,policy implementation,reading intervention,response to Intervention,school improvement

Language English

Advisor Amanda Datnow (committee chair), Painter, Gary D. (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email springyank2@cox.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1380

Unique identifier UC170029

Identifier etd-Jacobs-20080728 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-199928 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1380 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Jacobs-20080728.pdf

Dmrecord 199928

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Jacobs, Cindy Newman

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