Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation
(USC Thesis Other)
The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION:
A CASE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF RTI IMPLEMENTATION
by
Michelle Kristin Kimmel
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Michelle Kristin Kimmel
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
The Statement of the Problem 7
Research Questions 15
Significance of the Study 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 17
Introduction 17
Research on RTI 19
Standard Protocol Approach versus Problem Solving Approach for RTI 19
Large Scale RTI Models 26
Using RTI Models to Identify Students with Reading Disabilities 31
Using RTI with EL Populations 40
Factors that Affect RTI Implementation 43
Summary of RTI Research 46
Factors that Influence Implementation of Educational Reform 46
Teacher Buy-in and Commitment 48
District and Site Level Leadership 50
School Culture and Climate 52
Professional Development 53
Accountability Mandates 55
Teaching and Learning 56
Parent Involvement 57
Funding and Resources 57
Policy Attributes Affecting Implementation 58
Summary 61
Measuring and Evaluating Reform Success 61
Evaluation Methods 62
Summary 65
Conclusion 66
Summary 66
Questions to be Answered 67
Purpose of the Study 68
iii
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 69
Introduction 69
Sample and Population 70
Data Collection Procedures 73
Data Analysis Procedures 76
Ethical Considerations 78
Limitations of the Study 79
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 81
Introduction 81
School Sites 81
Background of RTI Set-up at the School Sites 82
Research Questions 83
Addressing the Research Questions 84
Figure 1: The Components of RTI Implementation at Laurel and Walnut 86
How has each School Site Implemented RTI? 87
RTI and the Schools’ Plans for Improving At-risk Achievement 98
Factors that Facilitated and/or Hindered the Implementation of RTI 115
How is each school measuring the implementation and results of RTI? 146
Key Advice for Implementing RTI at Own Site 156
Culminating Summary of Research Findings 160
Findings from Overarching Research Question 160
Findings from Sub-research Question 1 161
Findings from Sub-research Question 2 162
Findings from Sub-research Question 3 163
Overall Significance of the Findings 164
Conclusion 165
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS 166
Overview of the Problem 166
Purpose of the Study 167
Summary of the Research Findings 168
Connections to Prior Research 170
The Implementation and Effects of RTI 170
Factors that Enhance the Implementation of Educational Reform 175
The Measurement and Evaluation of Reform Success 178
Recommendations for Future Research 179
Implications for Policy and Practice 180
Conclusion 182
iv
REFERENCES 184
APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 198
APPENDIX B: TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 200
APPENDIX C: RTI OBSERVATION PROTOCOL 202
APPENDIX D: RTI DOCUMENT PROTOCOL 203
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Special Education Statistics at Laurel and Walnut 72
Table 2. Codes for this Study 77
vi
ABSTRACT
Today in education, there is heightened emphasis on increasing
accountability to improve student achievement. With the current authorization of No
Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
schools are required to close their achievement gap by targeting student academic
difficulties. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a new initiative stemming from past
federal legislation and ongoing reform movements that emphasizes using effective
instruction to meet all students’ needs through a multi-tiered intervention model.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to investigate the successes
and challenges of the RTI model to better understand the purpose behind the
implementation to meet at-risk needs. This study provided an in-depth description of
RTI implementation. The research questions that guided this study were: (1) How
has each school site implemented RTI? (2) How does RTI fit with the schools’ plans
for improving the achievement of at-risk students? (3) What factors have facilitated
and/or hindered the implementation of RTI? (4) How is each school measuring the
implementation and results of RTI?
I studied two Southern California elementary school sites. The two sites
were selected because they had implemented the RTI model for at least two
consecutive school years and they attributed a reduction in special education services
to RTI implementation. The data collection consisted of primarily interviews along
with observation and document analysis. At each school site, I interviewed the RTI
team members individually.
vii
This study’s findings established that principal leadership, teacher buy-in,
resources, and professional development positively impacted RTI implementation at
the two sites whereas limited district support was seen as an implementation
challenge. Also, RTI was implemented similarly at both sites with a few minor
differences which was surprising since (1) the schools have diverse populations
while NCLB and IDEIA’s description of RTI is vague, and (2) policy
implementation research has shown that local variation exists when implementing a
top-down reform policy. However, the local context corresponded with each
school’s need for RTI, so the implementation was alike and successful. To
successfully implement RTI, policy and practice implications for district and school
leaders were suggested.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
A major emphasis of both the No Child Left Behind Act and the
reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act is
understanding and addressing students’ difficulties in school (Brown-Chidsey &
Steege, 2005). Today, an estimated 20% to 30% of the total student population in
America is at risk for school failure (McCook, 2006). McCook (2006) asserts,
. . . approximately 80 percent of the student body can be served successfully
with the present educational service delivery model, while between 5 percent
and 10 percent need additional interventions to be successful, and another 6
percent need intensive interventions to be successful (p. 2).
Response to Intervention (RTI) is a new approach that identifies, defines, and
resolves students’ academic difficulties through a multi-tiered instruction model
(Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). It is an assessment
intervention model that enables teachers to deliver research-based instructional
methods to at-risk students (Ardoin, Witt, Connell, & Koenig, 2005; Batsche, Elliott,
Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Schrag, & Tilly, 2006; Brown-Chidsey
& Steege, 2005; Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater, & Cirino, 2006; Shores &
Bender, 2007b; Vaughn & Klinger, 2007; Wedl, 2005). The foundation for the
current RTI initiative stems back to federal educational legislation and policies
authorized during the 1960s, which will be discussed briefly below.
2
Federal policies relating to the education of disadvantaged and special
education. On April 11, 1965, President Johnson signed the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) bill (Cross, 2004; Rosenberg, 1991). The purpose
of the bill was to bridge the education gap for American students living in poverty
(Cross, 2004; Public Law 89-10, 1965; Rosenberg, 1991). The bill provided funding
to aid educationally disadvantaged children (Cross, 2004; McDonnell, 2005; Public
Law 89-10, 1965; Rosenberg, 1991). After signing the bill, President Johnson also
established an intergovernmental task force to study education (Cross, 2004;
Rosenberg, 1991). Since then, the ESEA has been revised multiple times, yet the
revisions continue to fulfill its original purpose in supporting the education of at-risk
students.
Special education services were enacted in 1975 with the passage of
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) (Batsche et al., 2006;
Mehan, Hertweck, & Meihls, 1986; Public Law 94-142, 1975; Prasse, 2006; Wedl,
2005). The law mandated that all disabled students receive a free and appropriate
public education, be provided with the least restrictive environment, provide parents
due process rights, and enable students to have access to nondiscriminatory
evaluation procedures. The law also required that before a school could make any
special education decisions, a child must receive a full individual evaluation (Mehan
et al., 1986). EAHCA also established the process for special education placement;
the method used to identify students for special education services became known as
the referral process (Mehan et al., 1986). The referral process consisted of
3
conducting a full nondiscriminatory evaluation, including assessment, on a child to
determine if he/she would be identified for special education. After analyzing the
evaluation data, a school team would meet to determine if the student would receive
special education services. If the team decided to recommend special education
placement, the placement of the student would be determined; of course, based on
the law, the placement had to be in the least restrictive environment for the student.
The team also would create an individualized education plan (IEP) to meet the needs
of the student. Annual goals would be developed for the IEP, and each year the team
would meet to review and revise the IEP for the student. The purpose of EAHCA, “
. . . was to make small educational investments early in a disabled child’s life that
might lead to him or her becoming a self-sufficient, productive adult who would
need fewer social services later on” (Palmaffy, 2001, p. 5).
In 1990, EAHCA was renewed and renamed as the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) (Wedl, 2005). Thus, the new goal was to support states in
upholding the equal-protection guarantee in the 14
th
Amendment (Palmaffy, 2001).
Along with mandating that students receive a free and appropriate public education
with the least restrictive environment, the law also required that every disabled
student has an individualized education plan (IEP). The IEP was designed to be used
as a tool that enabled parents as well as the school district to ensure that a disabled
student is receiving an appropriate education.
4
IDEA was reauthorized in 1997; at that time, the act identified 13 categories
of disabilities including the category of Learning Disabilities (LD) (OSERS IDEA
1997, 2007; Prasse, 2006; Wedl, 2005). The intent of the reauthorization was to
provide disabled students with access to the general curriculum as well as
incorporate disabled students into the general education standards and accountability
movement (Palmaffy, 2001). It also required educational services to meet students’
needs prior to identifying students as disabled (Batsche et al., 2006). IDEA 1997
acknowledged the importance of using regular education intervention and problem
solving models (Wedl, 2005). Hence, the reauthorization in 1997 placed more
emphasis on student outcomes (Prasse, 2006).
In 2001, President George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 2001, referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Public Law 107-110, 2001). The passage
of this law instituted a large scale reform effort to improve the performance of all
American schools (United States Department of Education, 2001; United States
Department of Education, 2003). Based on the requirements of NCLB, 100% of all
students must be academically proficient by 2014. K-12 districts across the United
States are pressured to improve school-wide because
5
The recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 and the federal government’s single largest investment in American’s
elementary and secondary schools, the No Child Left Behind Act, have
similarly required practices based on high quality research for everything
from the technical assistance to schools to the choice of anti-drug abuse
programs (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003, p. 162-163).
Therefore, the intent of NCLB is to use “. . . evidence-based and scientifically
validated instructional practices designed to improve learning outcomes for all
students” (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005, p. 14-15).
Furthermore, the law increased the federal government’s participation in
local schools (Cross, 2004). Testing, Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), teacher
quality, and funding are the major provisions outlined in the law. Within the testing
provision, the law requires that all third through eighth grade students are tested
annually in the areas of math and reading. The annual test results are used to
determine each school’s AYP in order to fulfill the aim that all American children
are becoming proficient in reading and math. NCLB also requires that all teachers
are highly qualified; to become highly qualified teachers must meet rigorous
standards and be provided with research-based professional development. With
NCLB, Title I funding has increased, but it is allocated to the neediest schools and
districts (Cross, 2004; Koppich, 2005). McDonnell (2005) summarizes NCLB as, “.
. . [it] trades flexibility in program operations and the specifics of state standards and
assessments for greater emphasis on educational outcomes” (p. 32-33).
6
The four major principles of NCLB are using evidence-based practices,
monitoring student progress, implementing early reading intervention for at risk
students, and applying all principles to all children (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005;
Public Law 107-110, 2001; United States Department of Education, 2003). In other
words, schools will use scientifically-based interventions to meet students’ needs and
then monitor student results through data collection and analysis (Batsche et al.,
2006; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Thus, McDonnell (2005) proclaims,
. . . NCLB has deep roots in past policies. At its birth 40 years ago, ESEA
Title I represented a radical departure for the federal government, but each
successor policy, including NCLB, has built on that foundation as its
architects have worked to adapt Title I’s original goals to new political and
educational circumstances (p. 36).
In 2004, IDEA was reauthorized and renamed as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (Public Law 108-446, 2004).
Turnbull (2005) states, “. . . IDEA is more consistent than ever with other federal
policies that impose accountability standards . . .” (p. 320). Three elements were
integrated into the new authorization; they include: the use of scientifically based
reading instruction, evaluation of students responding to intervention, and the role of
using data for decision making (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005). One new
reauthorization aspect is that IDEIA now applies to all students who encounter
difficulties with the general education curriculum. In particular, the new law “. . .
requires general education to monitor and measure a student’s response to an
individualized intervention in the general education classroom” (McCook, 2006, p.
3). IDEIA also “gives general education 15 percent of special education monies”
7
which can help fund interventions using the RTI model (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p.
130; Hollenbeck, 2007; Lose, 2007; Samuels, 2008b). Hollenbeck (2007) states,
“The IDEA 2004 suggests applications of RTI without stipulating specifics of the
construct, giving researchers and practitioners the freedom to develop unique RTI
implementations” (p. 137). Thus, IDEIA encourages prevention and intervention
through the use of response to intervention to target students experiencing difficulties
in school (Batsche et al., 2006; Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007; Healy,
Vanderwood, & Edelston, 2005; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Prasse, 2006; Vaughn &
Klingner, 2007).
The Statement of the Problem
The goal of past and current federal policies has been to close the
achievement gaps between students in the United States. In 1997, Congress initiated
the enactment for Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) to assist
schools in initiating a school-wide reform process (United States Department of
Education, 2004). The focus of CSR is “. . . on reorganizing and revitalizing entire
schools rather than on implementing a number of specialized, and potentially
uncoordinated, school improvement initiatives” (Borman et al., 2003, p. 126-127).
CSR funds are dispersed to schools that meet the Department of Education’s eleven
component comprehensive and scientifically-based school reform criteria (Borman et
al., 2003; Datnow, Foster, Kemper, Lasky, Rutherford, Schmidt, Stringfield,
Sutherland, & Thomas, 2005; Desimone, 2002; Hansel, 2000; Sterbinsky, Ross, &
Redfield, 2006; Vernez, Karam, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006).
8
Out of the past federal legislation and reform movements developed a new
general and special education initiative, RTI, which prides itself on promoting
effective instruction for all students (Brown-Chidsey, 2005; Brown-Chidsey &
Steege, 2005). RTI “. . . allows schools to intervene early to meet the needs of
struggling learners” (Hilton, 2007, p. 16) by “. . . providing early intervention to all
children at risk for school failure” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006, p. 93). Specifically, it
facilitates the communication and consistency across grade levels and across
subjects. It is based on the belief that all students can learn, and it incorporates high
quality systematic instruction along with monitoring student progress.
Brown-Chidsey and Steege (2005) state, “The goal and expectation [of RTI]
is that students can learn if given the right instruction” (p. 161) which is determined
by collecting data to illustrate whether or not the intervention growth enhanced
instructional outcomes (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Barnett, 2005). According to
Batsche et al. (2006), the seven core RTI principles are: effectively teach all
students, intervene early, use a multi-tier service delivery model, provide research-
based intervention and instruction, monitor student progress to inform instruction,
use data to make decisions, and use assessment for screening and monitoring. Two
additional beliefs of the RTI model are providing professional development and
ensuring leadership (Samuels, 2008a). Lloyd-Jones (2007) states,
9
RTI necessitates that all staff within the school take responsibility for student
achievement. It requires an alignment of assessment and instruction to
produce positive academic outcomes for all students. It will involve a
collaboration and alignment of purpose between general and special
education and other remedial services offered within the district (p. 1).
RTI assesses students’ needs and provides extra intense instruction to those
identified as needing it. In short, RTI is described as,
Delivering scientifically based interventions with integrity and monitoring
(frequently) how the student responds to those interventions provides an
invaluable database of important information about the need to change or
sustain the intervention in a timely fashion (Prasse, 2006, p. 13).
RTI is a multi-tiered model, yet there are various versions of model along
with different implementation methods (Batsche et al., 2006; Brown-Chidsey, 2005;
Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Mellard, Bryd,
Johnson, Tollefson, Boesche, 2004; Samuels, 2006; Samuels, 2008a; Samuels,
2008b). Linan-Thompson et al. (2006) state,
Tiered instruction provides a systematic procedure, based on progress
monitoring data, for providing supplemental intervention to students that
require various levels of support to benefit from classroom instruction (p.
391).
Thus, the intent of having a multi-tiered RTI model is that it enables students to
receive more intensive instruction at the higher level tiers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;
Mellard et al., 2004). The instruction is teacher centered, systematic, explicit, and
10
monitored (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005). VanDerHeyden et al. (2005) describe
the RTI model as, “the key idea is to systematically find and apply an optimal
amount of intervention strength to bring about desired changes in a child’s
performance or behavior, and then to use that information as evaluation data” (p.
339).
Most RTI models involve three tiers (Ardoin et al., 2005; Batsche et al.,
2006; Bender & Shores, 2007; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hilton, 2007; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Marston, 2005;
Mellard et al., 2004; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; VanDerHeyden et al., 2005; Vaughn
& Klingner, 2007; Samuels, 2006; Samuels, 2008a; Stecker, 2007). Specifically,
Burns and Ysseldyke (2005) describe the three-tier RTI model as,
. . . students participate in effective general education instruction provided by
their classroom teacher, progress is monitored, those students who do not
respond to the effective instruction are given additional or different
remediation, progress is again monitored, and those students who are not
responsive to the more intense intervention are either qualified or evaluated
for special education (p. 10).
While Samuels (2006) describes the tiers as,
The first tier is standard classroom instruction. A student who has academic
problems is then referred to a second tier, which might include small-group
sessions and more intense instruction, using scientifically based methods
shown to provide results for struggling learners. The third tier is yet more
intensive, and may include individualized instruction. If a student continues
to have learning difficulties after the third tier, he or she may be in need of
special education services (p. 2).
11
Within the three levels of intervention, 75-80% is universal intervention provided for
all students through tier I, 10-15% is targeted intervention provided to at-risk
students through tier II, and 5-10% is intensive, individualized intervention provided
to students who have been non-responsive with tier I and tier II intervention (Batsche
et al., 2006; Bender & Shores, 2007; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Samuels, 2008a).
According to Ardoin et al. (2005), Batsche et al. (2006), Bender and Shores
(2007), Burns and Ysseldyke (2005), Fuchs and Deshler (2007), Fuchs and Fuchs
(2006), Linan-Thompson et al. (2006), Marston (2005), Mellard et al. (2004),
Mellard and Johnson (2008), VanDerHeyden et al. (2005), Vaughn and Klingner
(2007), Samuels (2006), Samuels (2008a), and Stecker (2007), tier I intervention is
core instruction in the general education classroom for all students, tier II refers to
small group intensive instruction for at-risk students, and tier III refers individual
intensive instruction. Tier I intervention is general education instruction for all
students. In particular, all students are provided with research-based core instruction
(Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a). Hollenbeck (2007) states, “At
the heart of the first tier lies high quality, research-based instruction for all students
in the general education environment” (p. 138).
In tier II, students who were unsuccessful with tier I intervention in the
general education classroom are provided with more targeted instruction
emphasizing more intensive intervention in the area of academic need, a longer
duration of targeted instruction, and a smaller group size ranging from about three to
six students (Hollenbeck, 2007; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Stecker, 2007; Vaughn &
12
Roberts, 2007). So, the intensity, frequency, length of time for the intervention and
duration are key aspects for developing effective tier II interventions (Bradley et al.,
2007; Mellard et al., 2004). When students are not responding to tier II
interventions, then they are provided with the most intense intervention through tier
III. Generally, tier III is delivered individually or in a small group of two to three
students; the instruction focuses on specific individual needs and is delivered over a
longer period of time (Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Samuels, 2008a; Stecker, 2007).
Therefore, the major difference between the three tiered levels is the intensity of the
intervention (Bradley et al., 2007; Stecker, 2007; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007).
One of the first steps when implementing the RTI model is to screen the
students and then monitor their general education instruction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
Batsche et al. (2006) states, “During the course of instruction, the school uses
universal screenings in essential academic areas to identify each student’s level of
proficiency” (p. 23). So, after a period of about six to eight weeks, at-risk students
need to be assessed to determine if they have responded to the general instruction
(Ardoin et al., 2005; Bradley et al., 2007; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs,
2006; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Samuels, 2005; VanDerHeyden et al., 2005;
Samuels, 2006). In tier I, all students are assessed with a universal screening to
determine each student’s academic skills (Batsche et al., 2006; Bradley et al., 2007;
Hollenbeck, 2007; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007) and Batsche
13
et al. (2006) believes that the universal screening assessment should be given three
times a year, at the beginning of the school year, during the middle of the year, and
at the end of the year. In contrast, Fuchs and Fuchs (2007a) and Fuchs and Fuchs
(2007b) suggest that at-risk students be identified for tier II intervention not only by
a universal screening measure, but also by ongoing short-term progress monitoring.
If students have not responded to tier I instruction in the general education
classroom based on the screening and monitoring, those identified at-risk students
will need to receive additional, intensive tier II instruction which may occur in the
general education classroom or may occur outside the classroom (Ardoin et al.,
2005; Bradley et al., 2007; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Linan-
Thompson et al., 2006; Samuels, 2005; VanDerHeyden et al., 2005; Samuels, 2006;
Stecker, 2007; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). “The RTI model requires data-based
documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals,
reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction,” states Burns
(2007, p. 136).
Monitoring and assessing students’ progress are also two essential
components of the RTI model. Batsche et al. (2006) explains,
Ongoing assessment of students’ proficiency on critical academic and/or
behavioral skills is an essential aspect of the system. Progress monitoring
data are used to inform instruction at each tier and also to identify the
appropriate level of service for each student in a timely fashion (p. 22).
Classroom teachers continue to monitor and frequently assess the at-risk students’
performance based on the intervention (Batsche et al., 2006; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;
14
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007b; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Samuels, 2005). Within each
of the leveled tiers, student progress is monitored continually (Fuchs & Fuchs,
2007b; Stecker, 2007), sometimes as often as once or twice a week, “. . . to gauge a
student’s responsiveness to the interventions” (Samuels, 2006, p. 2). In other words,
to determine if students are responding to the intervention, “. . . students’ academic
progress is monitored frequently to see if the interventions are sufficient to help the
student to catch up with his or her peers” (Hilton, 2007, p. 16). Fuchs and Fuchs
(2007b) indicate that Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) should be used to
assess and progress monitor student in the area of reading since they are standardized
measures of fluency. Thus, with RTI
. . . assessment is seen as a tool to enable the teacher and student, working in
concert, to strengthen the student’s learning. Both assessment and instruction
are not seen as separated endeavors, but rather as techniques to move students
into greater understanding. . . . [and it] may be viewed as frequent assessment
for learning rather than assessment of learning (Bender, 2008, p. 128, 140).
Most of the prior research on RTI has focused on the use of the RTI model to
enhance student achievement. Other research has compared the similarities and
differences between the different RTI models and approaches. Some research has
even discussed how to use RTI as a tool to identify learning disabled students for
special education. Yet, there has been little prior research that has studied and
analyzed in-depth the factors that facilitate and/or hinder RTI implementation.
Hence, this study will seek to fill that gap.
15
Research Questions
The aim of this qualitative case study is to investigate the successes and
challenges of the Response to Instruction (RTI) model at two particular school sites
in order to better understand their purpose behind the implementation and use of RTI
in meeting the needs of their at-risk students. This study will focus on addressing the
following overarching research question:
How has each school site implemented RTI?
Furthermore, the following sub-questions will also be addressed:
1. How does RTI fit with the schools’ plans for improving the achievement
of at-risk students?
2. What factors (e.g. leadership, professional development, teacher support,
district support) have facilitated and/or hindered the implementation of
RTI?
3. How is each school measuring the implementation and results of RTI?
Significance of the Study
To improve learning outcomes for all students including at-risk populations,
general education teachers, administrators, and specialists must learn how to
effectively implement RTI. In particular, it is an early intervention and prevention
model (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a; Fuchs et al., 2003; Lloyd-Jones, 2007; Lose, 2007;
Samuels, 2006; Samuels, 2008a) that screens students and monitors specific
outcomes through systematic, data-driven intervention (Brown-Chidsey & Steeger,
16
2005; Wedl, 2005). Hence, the purpose of implementing RTI in classrooms today is
that it
. . . will result in enhanced instruction for all students. In an era in which
schools are searching for ways to achieve adequate yearly progress toward
increasingly demanding educational standards, RTI will offer a renewed
emphasis on ‘best practice’ instruction for all students. By using RTI,
teachers will be more equipped than ever before to demonstrate the exact
achievement levels of their students, and to tailor instruction directly toward
any identified academic deficits (Shores, Morgan, & Bender, 2007, p. 67).
When this case study is concluded, the research results will acknowledge the
successes and challenges of implementing the RTI model at the two school sites.
Specifically, the factors that contributed and/or hindered the RTI implementation
will be identified, analyzed, and discussed. Furthermore, the overall results from the
case study will hopefully strengthen the ability for other similar schools to facilitate
the implementation of a multi-tiered RTI model.
17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The focal point in education policy today is increased accountability, higher
standards, and an emphasis on comprehensive educational reform because it “. . . has
the potential to revolutionize school improvement in some of the most challenging
contexts in the United States” (Borman et al., 2003, p. 163). Thus, the purpose of the
current reform movement is to increase student achievement for all students,
especially high poverty students, at-risk students, and special education students
(Borman et al., 2003; Sterbinsky et al., 2006).
NCLB mandates that schools, including high poverty schools, improve
academic achievement of low and high performing students in which “the ultimate
goal is for all children to attain challenging state academic content, and academic
standards, within a 12-year period” (Sterbinsky et al., 2006, p. 367). Hence,
educational reform today promotes “. . . [the] dynamic, active [school change]
process that involves changing hearts and minds as well as policies, operating
procedures, and relations of power” (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000, p. 187). Since
NCLB and “comprehensive school reform [have] the important goal of improving
student learning,” the current accountability and reform movement along with past
federal educational legislation has prompted the creation of Response to Intervention
(RTI), a popular initiative for targeting and enhancing the achievement of at-risk
students (Desimone, 2002, p. 436). As a part of NCLB requirements, schools must
analyze student data to monitor instruction so that all students will become proficient
18
in reading and mathematics. Therefore, the use of RTI will force “. . . schools to
examine contextual issues (quality of instruction) and more importantly shift focus
from identifying students with a deficit to identifying students at risk” (Ardoin et al.,
2005, p. 362) since RTI “. . . requires educators to provide early intervention, match
instruction to the academic needs of students, and monitor student progress with
ongoing data-based decision making” (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman,
2003, p. 392). The use of RTI enables educators to facilitate high quality instruction
and data decision making (Mellard et al., 2004; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Bender
(2008) states, “. . . RTI provides perhaps the strongest basis for differentiation of
instruction, since closely monitoring the progress of struggling students allows the
teacher and the student to jointly and specifically focus instruction on the exact
curricular skills that challenge the child” (p. 140).
To examine the research questions for this particular study and explore issues
concerning the impact of response to intervention, research literature will be
reviewed and analyzed. The key literature areas include:
1. Research on the implementation and effects of RTI.
2. An examination of factors that enhance implementation of educational
reforms and school improvement more generally.
3. An examination of measuring and evaluating reform success.
However, the bulk of the review is focused on RTI.
19
Research on RTI
RTI is a multi-tiered intervention approach that is used to meet the needs of
all students including special education students (Burns et al., 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs,
2006; Fuchs et al., 2003; Mellard et al., 2004). In schools today, various RTI
versions or models exist, yet “. . . it is better to think of RTI as a process and not a
single model . . .” (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007, p. 51). Additionally, the
implementation methods of RTI vary, yet the ideal RTI model consists of ongoing
progress monitoring, tracking of data, using research-based practices, having an
effective general education instruction, and providing specific interventions for at-
risk students (Hollenbeck, 2007). Therefore, this review of the RTI literature will
concentrate on the following sections:
a. An examination of the standard protocol approach versus the problem
solving approach for RTI.
b. An examination of large scale RTI models.
c. An examination of using the RTI models to identify students with reading
disabilities.
d. An examination of using RTI with English Learner (EL) populations.
Standard Protocol Approach versus Problem Solving Approach for RTI
RTI is implemented quite differently in schools and districts, depending upon
the approach which is adopted. This section will focus on discussing the standard
protocol approach to RTI and the problem solving approach to RTI. In particular,
20
the similarities and differences will be identified for each approach. Fuchs et al.
(2003) assert,
At the present, RTI is implemented in various ways in at least a score of
districts. The RTIs differ in terms of the number of levels in the process;
who delivers the interventions; and whether the process is viewed as a
precursor to a formal evaluation for eligibility, or if RTI is itself the
eligibility evaluation (p. 159).
Problem solving approach. The problem solving approach is generally a
three-phase, also known as three-tiered, model that assesses a student’s disability
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004; Tilly, 2003). It is the more widely used approach,
and it involves problem identification, problem analysis, plan implementation, and
problem evaluation (Batsche et al., 2006; Fuchs et al., 2003; Shores & Bender,
2007a). With the approach, students are provided with an individually tailored
program (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a). It also emphasizes team collaboration and goal
setting (Hollenbeck, 2007). In particular, teams evaluate student data to make
intervention decisions for each student (Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Shores & Bender,
2007a). Additionally, the problem solving approach is sometimes referred to as
prereferral intervention (Fuchs et al., 2003; McNamara & Hollinger, 2003).
In the phase one of the problem solving approach, students’ growth is tracked
in the general education classroom (Fuchs et al., 2004). To track growth, an
assessment is given to determine if the classroom instruction is facilitating progress
for all students (Fuchs et al., 2004; Shores & Bender, 2007a). A student whose level
of performance is below his or her peers on the whole class assessment is then
further assessed in phase II; those are the students who are unresponsive to the
21
classroom instruction and as a result they are provided with intervention (Fuchs et
al., 2004). If they continue to be unresponsive, they are provided with additional
problem solving and individualized adaptations at the phase III level. For all three
phases, generally curriculum-based measurements are used to measure the students’
response to instruction. Yet, the negative of problem solving approach as per Fuchs
and Fuchs (2007a) is that, “These interventions attempt to increase student
performance on skills that are already acquired, rather than designing instruction to
develop new skills (p. 16).”
One problem solving approach is the Heartland Early Literacy Project
(HELP), a three or four tier model (Tilly, 2003, Tilly, 2007a; Tilly, 2007b). HELP
was implemented in 121 schools to improve early reading skills for kindergarten
through third grade students (Tilly, 2003). First of all, all students are assessed, and
then universal interventions in reading are provided to all students (Tilly, 2007a;
Tilly, 2007b). At-risk students, performing below their peers, receive targeted group
intervention. If the students continue to demonstrate a lack of progress or limited
progress, they are provided with intensive, individual intervention. In other words,
tier one is universal intervention, tier two is supplemental intervention for at-risk
students, and tier three is intensive intervention (Tilly, 2007b). The results in the
study indicate that the use of tiered instruction reduced the number of students
identified and placed in special education at the HELP schools (Tilly, 2003).
22
Specifically, in kindergarten the special education identification rate decreased by
42%, in first grade it decreased by 34%, in second grade it decreased by 25%, and in
third grade it decreased by 19%. Yet, the results from HELP have to be interpreted
cautiously because a true experiment was not conducted (Tilly, 2003).
A new emerging problem solving model is the Screening to Enhance
Educational Performance, sometimes referred to as Screening to Enhance Equitable
Placement, (STEEP) (VanDerHeyden & Jimerson, 2005; Witt, 2007). The STEEP
model facilitates “. . . a more efficient identification of children who require more
individualized problem-solving efforts” (VanDerHeyden, & Jimerson, 2005, p. 25)
since data is collected for each student and progress is monitored (VanDerHeyden &
Jimerson, 2005; Witt, 2007). In the first stage, all students are administered CBMs
in reading, writing, and math; based on the class CBM results, teachers provide a
daily 10 minute whole class intervention for 10 days (VanDerHeyden & Jimerson,
2005). Students who continue to not perform at the instructional range are identified
for stage two intervention. In stage two, students are assessed for performance and
skill deficits. The students are encouraged and provided rewards if they increase
their assessment score. They are also provided with individual intervention, stage
three. Those students, generally about 11% of students in a given classroom, receive
individual intervention daily in order to improve their performance and skills. If
23
they do not respond to stage three intervention, they will either receive more
extensive intervention or they may be referred for special education evaluation.
Since STEEP is a new model, currently there is lack of research on the
implementation results.
Standard protocol approach. The other RTI approach is the standard
protocol which addresses the learning of at-risk students by providing them all with
the same intensive instruction (Fuchs et al., 2004; Fuchs et al., 2003; Hollenbeck,
2007; O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, 2003; Vaughn, 2003). The intensive instruction is
commonly delivered by a fixed-duration trial consisting of small group or individual
tutoring (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a; Fuchs et al., 2004; Marston, 2005; Mellard &
Johnson, 2008). Along with providing intensive instruction, it also promotes the
acquisition of new skills (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a). Like the problem solving
approach, the standard protocol is also a three-phase approach, yet the focus is on
prevention and remediation (Fuchs et al., 2004). Fuchs et al. (2004) describe the
standard protocol RTI approach as,
If the student responds to an intensive treatment trial, she is seen as
remediated and disability-free and is returned to the general education
classroom. If, on the other hand, she is non-responsive, a disability is
suspected and further evaluation is warranted (p. 218).
Vaughn (2003) and O’Connor et al. (2003) conducted true experiments using
the standard protocol RTI approach. Vaughn’s (2003) first study examined the
levels of reading support, tier I and tier II, provided to at-risk kindergarteners at six
Title I elementary schools in the Southwest. The results indicate that the at-risk
24
students who received both tier I and tier II instruction made the largest gains. In the
second part of the study, Vaughn (2003) examined the extent that second grade
students respond positively to intervention. Forty-five second grade students were
provided with tier II intervention for 35 minutes five days a week; the findings
suggest that 34 out of the 45 second grade at-risk students responded to tier II
intervention between 10 and 30 weeks.
Furthermore, O’Connor et al. (2003) measured the effects of a three-tier
reading intervention model for 92 kindergarten through third grade students. Tier I
intervention consisted of research-based professional development in the area of
reading for primary teachers. Students who were at-risk in reading were provided
with a 10 to 25 minute small group instruction in reading three days a week in
addition to classroom reading instruction. The at-risk students who lacked progress
received small group or individual reading instruction daily for tier III. The results
indicate that students who participated in the tiered interventions had higher
performance in decoding, word identification, fluency, and reading comprehension.
Lastly, VanDerHeyden et al. (2005) studied academically at-risk first and
second grade students in reading and math. Curriculum based assessment (CBA)
was used to screen students; students who did not met CBA criteria were provided
with individual intervention four days per week over a three to nine week session.
Both reading and math interventions included modeling, guided practice, and
25
independent practice. The findings indicate that 80% to 90% of the students met the
criteria results in reading and math after intervention. According to Fuchs and
Deshler (2007) and Fuchs and Fuchs (2007a), research has indicated that using the
standard protocol approach improves academic achievement.
Implications of standard protocol vs. problem solving. As the above
discussion implies, the interpretation of responsiveness and unresponsive varies
between the two approaches (Fuchs et al., 2004). In the standard protocol approach,
students who do not respond to general education instruction participate in intensive,
research-based instructional intervention and students who respond to intensive
instruction at tier II or tier III are placed back in the general education classroom
after remediation. So, interventions are provided for a small group of students who
have similar academic problems (Shores & Bender, 2007b). Conversely, in the
problem solving approach, interventions are designed for individual students. In the
problem solving approach, students who are responsive or unresponsive to tier II or
tier III instruction continue to receive individual adaptations as well as they may be
referred for special education services after receiving intensive instruction which
generally occurs outside of the classroom (Fuchs et al., 2004). Additionally, when
using the problem solving approach, there is a lower bar to identify non-responsive
students for special education, and it is easier to assess students for special education
services (Fuchs et al., 2004). This can cause the problem of identifying and labeling
students too quickly for special education. With the standard protocol approach, at-
risk students are provided with more intensive instruction, so more students respond
26
positively, but again this may cause a “false negative” problem in which students
who have disabilities respond to intensive instruction and are placed back in the
general education where they continue to fail. Furthermore, the standard protocol
approach facilitates quality control while the problem solving approach emphasizes
individual differences (Fuchs et al., 2003). Even though differences exist among the
two approaches, both require research-based interventions and ongoing process
monitoring (Shores & Bender, 2007b). Thus, one must determine the intent of RTI,
either prevention or identification of special education services, prior to selecting the
standard protocol or problem solving approach (Fuchs et al., 2004). Educators must
keep in mind that “. . . researches have demonstrated a cause and effect relationship
between their standard protocol, [but] practitioners using problem solving, by and
large, have failed to do so” (Fuchs et al., 2003, p. 167). Hence, Fuchs and Fuchs
(2007a) “. . . recommend that schools rely on a combination of approaches with a
standard protocol used for academic difficulties and a problem-solving approach
used for obvious behavioral problems” (p. 16).
Large Scale RTI Models
This section will review research on the implementation of large scale RTI
models. Currently, there are four large scale RTI models which are all problem
solving approaches. They are the Heartland Agency Model in Iowa, Ohio’s
Intervention Based Assessment (IBA), Pennsylvania’s Instructional Support Teams
(IST), and Minneapolis Public School’s Problem-Solving Model (PSM) (Burns et al.,
2005; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). Burns et al. (2005) state,
27
Regardless of the RTI model proposed, each generally involves group
problem solving, close monitoring of student progress, implementation of
research-based individual interventions, and consideration for special
education services only after a student fails to respond adequately (p. 382).
Furthermore, all four models use data decision making to frequently monitor student
progress (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). The implementation of the large scale models
occurred through various phases so that training could be provided to teachers and
specialists. For instance, each of the four models has developed a multidisciplinary
collaborative team to provide guidance and support throughout the RTI
implementation.
Heartland agency model. The Heartland Agency Model was implemented
starting in 1985 (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). It began as a four-tiered model, and
now is restructured as a three-tier model. The model was implemented to identify
students who experience difficulties in the classroom. So, Heartland’s model “. . .
[provides] teachers with repeated opportunity and increasing levels of support to help
students become responsive to instruction” (Fuchs et al., 2003, p. 163). The findings
indicate that there was an increase in the number of general education students being
served through the interventions (Fuchs et al., 2003). In addition, the
implementation of Heartland model has reduced the number of students identified
and placed in special education at the HELP schools (Tilly, 2003). Even though the
findings suggest significance, one must remember that the Heartland studies are not
true experiments and only four percent of the schools participated in the evaluation
of the Heartland model (Fuchs et al., 2003; Tilly, 2003).
28
Intervention based assessment. IBA was implemented voluntarily during the
1992-1993 school year in Ohio (Fuchs et al., 2003). In this model, data is used by a
multidisciplinary team to design and evaluate interventions in order to identify
students for special education services (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003;
McNamara & Hollinger, 2003). McNamara and Hollinger (2003) conducted an IBA
study in which 155 elementary schools participated. The findings indicate that the
use of IBA increased the number of students eligible for intervention, and it
decreased the number of students eligible for special education. The study’s
conclusion may lack significance due to selection bias since the participants, 155
elementary schools, volunteered to participate in the study.
Instructional support team. IST was introduced in Pennsylvania in 1990 as a
collaborative problem solving and prereferral intervention model which shifted the
focus of special education to effective instruction in the general education classroom
(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003). The model was implemented in all
the Pennsylvania school districts over a five year period (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005).
Support teachers were formally trained to assist general education teachers in
implementing the intervention (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003).
Students experiencing problems or difficulties are assessed using CBA and then
interventions are created to assist the student. In other words, “a goal is then set and,
based on the assessment data, an intervention plan is developed” (Fuchs et al., 2003,
p. 162).
29
Problem solving model. In 1993, Minneapolis Public School developed PSM
as method to identify students for special education services (Fuchs et al., 2003;
Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003). Mellard et al. (2004) assert,
PSM represents a large-scale effort to employ a system of increasingly
intensive interventions planned and implemented by school personnel with
increasing levels of knowledge and expertise that ultimately results in a
program of remediation (p. 250).
The model consists of a sequence of problem solving steps which include describing
the student’s problem, generating and implementing strategies for intervention,
monitoring and evaluating student progress, and continuing the cycle (Marston et al.,
2003).
The problem solving steps occur in three stages (Fuchs et al., 2003; Marston
et al., 2003). In stage one, classroom intervention, students are screened globally; in
stage two, problem-solving team interventions, identified students are provided with
interventions and progress monitoring (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Marston et al.,
2003). Students who are not responding to instruction in stage two are placed in
stage three, special education referral, and they are referred to special education. In
sum, Marston et al. (2003) state,
The PSM is a systematic, data-driven process that is designed to use
collaborative teaming to address the diverse needs of students. It emphasizes
early classroom interventions, goal setting, data-based decision making, and
functional evaluation procedures. . . . The focus is on student response to
instruction, which becomes one of the primary factors for determining
eligibility for special education (p. 197).
Results from the implementation of the PSM model suggest that there was an
increase in the number of students being referred for PSM stage one and stage two
30
interventions. Also, the findings indicate that with the use of PSM, there was a
decline in the number of students being identified as learning disabled compared to
non-PSM schools. Yet, the PSM study’s conclusions must be interpreted cautiously
because the studies have lacked randomization and control groups as well as some
inconsistencies have occurred across the district due to the complexity and
subjectivity of the process (Marston et al., 2003).
Meta-review of large scale RTI models. Burns et al. (2005) examined a meta-
analytic review of the large scale RTI implementation models including the four
field-based models and other research-based models. The results indicate that there
were strong effects for the effectiveness of the large scale models. In particular, both
field and research based RTI models had strong effects, yet field based RTI models,
including Heartland Agency Model, IBA, IST, and PSM, consistently had stronger
effects than research based RTI models. The authors believe that this may be due to
the longer implementation of interventions used “in practice.” Also, the strong effect
size, .80, in the meta-analysis suggests that systemic and student outcomes improved
using the RTI large scale field-based models, but it is important to note that the
standard deviation for effect size was large (Burns et al., 2005).
Implications of large scale models. According to Burns and Ysseldyke
(2005), the four large scale models “. . . demonstrated large effects for improving
student learning and systemic variables such as reducing the number of children
referred to and placed into special education” (p. 10). On the contrary, Fuchs et al.
(2003) suggest the studies conducted on the four large scale models have consisted
31
of small samples as well as there is a lack of large scale implementation studies
overall to conclude that RTI models are significantly effective. In addition, the
leadership from the site administration and district varied even though all four
models developed a multidisciplinary team to assist with the RTI implementation
process. Thus, more research is needed in the area of leadership because “the need
of leadership is not restricted to initial implementation of RTI, but is perhaps more
important for sustaining RTI practices,” (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005, p. 14).
Using RTI Models to Identify Students with Reading Disabilities
Preventing reading difficulties is national priority today since about 30% of
American children are at-risk for reading problems (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006).
Therefore, various studies have been conducted to explore the use of the RTI model
in targeting reading instruction. Specifically, for tier I, general education teachers
teach core reading, and students who do not respond to the instruction are placed in
tier II for more intense reading intervention (Mellard et al., 2004).
RTI is framework that can assist educators in intervening and preventing
reading problems. In particular, the RTI model has been used to examine students
struggling in the area of reading compared to identifying students with reading
disabilities (Case, Speece, & Molloy, 2003; Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant,
2006; Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006; O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer,
2005b; Vaughn et al., 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006). The
participants in the following studies include students in elementary school ranging
from kindergarten through sixth grade with an emphasis on first grade.
32
Kindergarten and first grade interventions. Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2006),
O’Connor (2000), and Vellutino et al. (2006) have explored reading intervention
with kindergarten and first grade students using the RTI model. In the three studies,
students with reading difficulties were identified in kindergarten. Those identified
students were provided with intensive early reading intervention.
In the first study, the identified kindergarten students participated in small
group intervention two to three times a week (Vellutino et al., 2006). The students
were again assessed at the beginning of first grade. If they continued to demonstrate
reading difficulties, they were provided with daily one-on-one reading tutoring
during the entire school year. The results of the study indicate that the kindergarten
intervention decreased the number of students exhibiting reading problems at the
beginning of first grade.
O’Connor (2000) studied the tiers of early reading intervention for
kindergarten students over a two year period. Eight kindergarten classrooms
participated in tier one, whole class reading instruction. By February, 25
kindergarten students were identified for tier I and tier II, one-on-one tutoring. The
following school year, 20 of the students, now first graders, received tiers I and II
along with tier three which was a small group intervention of three to five students.
The tier III intervention occurred for 30 minute sessions four times a week over the
course of 14 weeks. In March, six students were selected to receive tier IV, one-on-
33
one tutoring in blending and spelling. The findings suggest that students who
participated in the tiered intervention progressed in their reading skills more
significantly than students who did not receive the tiered intervention. However,
three students who met exit criteria for tier II in kindergarten ended up needing tier
III and/or tier IV intervention as a first grader. At the end of the study, 10 out of 12
students who responded poorly or made decreases in growth between tiers were
identified for special education services.
In another study, Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2006) examined 104 kindergarten and
first grade students’ response or non-response to early literacy interventions over a
two year period. The participants in this study were part of another study exploring
reading intervention. Students were classified into the three groups, non-responsive,
sometimes responsive, and always responsive. Students in the non-responsive group
had not met the reading criteria in kindergarten while students in the sometimes
responsive group may have met criteria in either kindergarten or first grade but not
both grades. The always responsive group consisted of students who had met the
reading criteria in both kindergarten and first grade. Control groups were also used
to correspond with the non-responsive, sometimes responsive, and always
responsive. During the primary school years, the participants continued to receive
intervention, and they were again tested at the end of third grade to determine their
responsive status. The results suggest that non-responsiveness to intervention over a
long term period is an indicator for a reading disability (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006).
34
Thus, the kindergarten and first grade reading studies suggest that early reading
intervention using the RTI model
. . . [distinguishes] between children who need only a slight ‘boost’ in
kindergarten in order to meet grade-level expectations (and who are, thus, no
longer at risk) and more severely impaired children who will continue to need
remedial services in first grade and perhaps beyond first grade (Vellutino et
al., 2006, p. 161).
Kindergarten through third grade intervention. O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty,
and Bell (2005a) and O’Connor et al. (2005b) explored tiered intervention in reading
for kindergarten through third grade students. In the first study, the participants
included kindergarten through third grade students at two elementary schools
(O’Connor et al., 2005b). Based on reading assessments consisting of phoneme
awareness and letter knowledge, 31 kindergartners who scored low were selected to
participate in tier II which involved small group instruction for 20 to 25 minutes
three days a week above and beyond their general classroom reading instruction. Of
those 31 students, 16 qualified for tier II intervention in first grade. Ten of those
students were shifted to tier III intervention in the middle of first grade after
continuing to make poor progress at the tier II level; tier III intervention involved
individual or groups of two instruction for 30 minutes each day of the week.
35
O’Connor et al. (2005b) conclude, “. . . students eventually identified for special
services tended to drop in reading scores over the summer months, whereas those
without disabilities-even those at-risk students who received Tiers 2 and 3-tended to
grow” (p. 537). Hence, the tiered intervention model in reading enables educators to
help at-risk students as well as document intervention instruction for special
education referral (O’Connor et al., 2005b).
Another similar longitudinal study was conducted by O’Connor et al. (2005a)
which also examined the layers, tiers, of reading interventions. The participants
included the intervention group, 103 kindergarten and 103 first graders, and the
control group, 101 second graders and 102 third graders, at two elementary schools.
In year one, 31 kindergarten students who did not respond to tier I, professional
development for teaching in the area of reading, were placed in tier II, small group
instruction. In year two, 17 first grade students participated in small group
intervention through tier II; the intervention occurred for 20 to 25 minutes three
times a week. By the end of first grade, the intensity of tier II had increased to daily
intervention sessions for longer chunks of time. Tier II intervention was provided
for 18 second grade students and 9 third grade students in years three and four
respectively. The results indicate that “by third grade, only nine of the students
identified in kindergarten continued to need intervention in addition to general
education instruction” (O’Connor et al., 2005a, p. 452). Overall, the results from the
two studies suggest that early and continuous intervention in the primary grade
enhances reading (O’Connor et al., 2005a; O’Connor et al., 2005b).
36
First through third grade intervention. Four studies examined the
relationship between reading intervention and students with reading difficulties
and/or reading disabilities (Case et al., 2003; Denton et al., 2006; Fuchs et al., 2004;
Torgesen, Alexander, Wagner, Rashotte, Voeller, & Conway, 2001). In the first
study, Fuchs et al. (2004) studied responders and non-responders to reading
intervention in first and second grade. Teachers identified at-risk first and second
grade students based on the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS). The at-risk
students who did not respond to PALS were randomly assigned to intensive tutoring
or PALS in the classroom. The tutoring occurred for 30 to 35 minutes three to four
times per week over the course of 10 to 12 weeks. Overall, the results are not
conclusive since the students’ response to the intervention in both first and second
grade varied based on the measurement approach.
Researchers in another study evaluated tiered reading intervention for 27
students who did not respond to intervention at the first two levels (Denton et al.,
2006). First through third grade students who exhibited reading deficits in tiers I and
II participated in the study. The students participated in two 8 week tier III reading
interventions; the first eight week intervention consisted of two 50 minute sessions
focusing on explicit decoding while during the second eight weeks intervention,
students received oral reading fluency instruction for one hour per school day. The
findings in the study indicate that students receiving the tier III intervention for 16
weeks made significant gains in decoding, fluency, and comprehension.
37
Torgesen et al. (2001) examined intensive reading instruction for 60 learning
disabled students ages eight to ten. The students were randomly assigned to two
different instructional intervention programs which both emphasized phonemic
awareness, phonemic decoding, and sight word recognition. For eight weeks,
students participated in two 50 minute sessions each day. Over a two year period,
student growth was continually monitored after the intervention was completed. The
results indicate that 40% of the participants developed average level reading skills,
yet their reading rate did not increase.
A third mixed-method study, conducted by Case et al. (2003), examined the
validity of using RTI to identify students for special education over three years. A
sub sample of at-risk first and second grade students in reading from the authors’
previous study was selected for the current study. Students were classified into the
groups: never dually discrepant, infrequently dually discrepant, and frequently
dually discrepant. Partner reading, phonological awareness and phonics, and
behavioral and motivational skills were the research-based interventions. Each
intervention was implemented for eight weeks. The study establishes that an RTI
model can be used effectively to identify students for special education.
Specifically, students who do not respond to general education instruction along with
supplemental interventions may be referred for special education evaluation and
identification.
38
The results specified above for the first through third grade intervention
studies fluctuate. For students to experience significant reading outcomes, they need
to participate in a daily 45 minute to 50 minute tier II or III reading intervention for
an eight to 16 week period (Denton et al., 2006; Torgesen et al., 2001). Yet, more
studies need to be analyzed to determine if the first through third grade reading
intervention impacts student achievement significantly.
Second grade intervention. Vaughn et al. (2003) studied the use of the RTI
model to identify second grade students who may have reading or learning
disabilities. Teachers nominated second grade students who were below grade level;
the nominated students were given a reading inventory, and the 45 second grade
students who failed the inventory became the study participants. The students
received a 35 minute daily supplemental reading intervention which consisted of
instruction in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and
comprehension. In particular, students spent five minutes working on fluency, five
minutes working on phonemic awareness, 10 minutes working on leveled reading, 10
minutes working on word analysis, and three to five minutes working on writing.
Progress monitoring occurred weekly in order to adjust intervention to meet the skill
level for individual students. Every 10 weeks, students were assessed to determine if
they met the intervention exit criteria. The results indicate that 10 students met the
exit criteria at 10 weeks, referred to as early exit; they were exited from the
supplemental reading instruction. At 20 weeks, mid-term exit, 14 students met the
criteria and were exited from the intervention. Of those 24 students, 22 exited from
39
the intervention at 10 weeks or 20 weeks and continually made reading progress in
the general education classroom. Additionally, 10 students met the exit criteria at 30
weeks, late exit. Even after 30 weeks of supplemental reading intervention, 11
students did not meet the exit criteria. Yet, the authors state, “. . . not all students
will make adequate progress in general education without ongoing, and for some
students extensive, supplemental instruction” (Vaughn et al., 2003, p. 406). Thus,
students who continually need ongoing, supplemental intervention in reading are the
students who should be assessed to determine if they have a reading disability
(Vaughn et al., 2003).
Summary of reading interventions. Early reading intervention using the RTI
model may help prevent students from experiencing reading difficulties (Denton et
al., 2006). Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2006) state,
. . . generally well-implemented, systematic, explicit, peer-mediated
intervention, targeting phonological and alphabetic awareness and
supplemented by teacher-directed phonological awareness training, can
substantially reduce the number of students at risk for reading problems (p.
428).
Therefore, the literature demonstrates that intensive small group or individual
reading intervention impacts primary students’ reading outcomes (Al Otaiba &
Fuchs, 2006; O’Connor, 2000; O’Connor et al., 2005a; O’Connor et al., 2005b;
Vaughn et al., 2003; Vellutino et al., 2006).
40
Using RTI with EL Populations
Today, many challenges exist for appropriately referring and identifying ELs
for special education services. About 47 million individuals speak a language other
than English at home and many EL and minority students are disproportionately
represented in special education programs today (Shores, Morgan, & Bender, 2007).
Many ELs, non-English speaking students, are identified to receive special education
services due to their language difficulties (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006). To
decrease inappropriate special education referrals, increase effective interventions,
and increase preventive and early intervention strategies for EL and minority
students, RTI should be utilized. This section will review literature that uses the RTI
model to target instruction for EL populations (Healy et al., 2005; Linan-Thompson
et al., 2006; Vaughn, Cirino, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Carlson, Cardenas-Hagan,
Pollard-Durodola, Fletcher, & Francis, 2006a; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Mathes,
Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan, & Francis, 2006b; Vaughn,
Mathes, Linan-Thompson, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan, &
Francis, 2006c; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005). There is a
lack of research in this area except for the following studies which have started to
examine the use of the RTI model with EL populations.
Reading intervention for first grade EL students. Healy et al. (2005)
conducted a study involving the use of RTI with first grade ELs. It was conducted in
an urban school with 100% free lunch population. First grade students were
screened using a school-wide literacy assessment. Students who did not obtain
41
mastery on the assessment were given two additional assessments, Phoneme
Segmentation Fluency (PSF) and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). The 15 first
grade students who received a score below 30 on the assessments were selected to
receive the intervention. The results indicate that the participants as an entire group
went from at risk to mastery. Specifically, six participants were exited from the
intervention after 12 sessions; 80%, 12 participants, were exited after the 25
th
session. Of the last three participants, two met the exit criteria for PSF and not NWF
while the other participant did not meet the exit criteria for PSF, yet made the exit
criteria for NWF. The findings in the study suggest that the RTI model can be used
to target at-risk EL students in the area of literacy.
Linan-Thompson et al. (2006), Vaughn et al. (2005), Vaughn et al. (2006a),
Vaughn et al. (2006b) and Vaughn et al. (2006c) explored reading intervention for
EL students by conducting quantitative, true experiment studies. The participants in
the first study included 103 first grade EL students across 11 schools (Linan-
Thompson et al., 2006). The students who scored below the 25
th
percentile on the
screening of a letter word identification test and were unable to read more than one
word on the reading list were selected for the intervention. Intervention students
received 50 minutes a day of intensive, systematic, and explicit intervention for
42
seven months. The results of the study indicate that 30 out 31 students responded to
the intervention in Spanish while 20 out of 22 students responded to the intervention
in English. A higher percentage of students met the RTI criteria than did the
percentage of students in the control group since 59% of the English instruction
control group did not fulfill the RTI criteria.
In the second study, 48 first grade EL students were randomly assigned to
either the intervention or control group (Vaughn et al., 2005; Vaughn et al., 2006a;
Vaughn et al., 2006b; Vaughn et al., 2006c). The intervention group, which consists
of small groups of three to five students, received 50 minutes of explicit and
systematic oral and reading instruction daily. The authors state, “. . . ELLs learning
to read in English make significant growth when this supplemental instruction
includes phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, alphabetic decoding, decodable text
practice, and comprehension strategies” (Vaughn et al., 2006c, p. 177). The findings
indicate that EL students who participated in the intensive intervention made greater
gains than the students in the control group (Vaughn et al., 2006c). So, the results
are statistically significant due to the randomization and large effect sizes. Thus,
using explicit, systematic, and intensive reading intervention through the RTI tiered
model enables EL students to make gains in reading (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006;
Vaughn et al., 2006a; Vaughn et al., 2006b; Vaughn et al., 2006c). Further research
is needed to determine if the RTI results are consistent and significant for larger
samples of EL students (Healy et al., 2005).
43
Factors that Affect RTI Implementation
Multiple factors influence the implementation of RTI. Professional
development for teachers is of course a key factor that impacts RTI implementation
(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Hilton, 2007; Hollenbeck, 2007;
Knotek, 2005; Marston, 2005; Marston et al., 2003; O’Connor et al., 2003;
O’Connor et al., 2005a; O’Connor et al., 2005b; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007).
Professional development is necessary because RTI requires educators to expand and
acquire new skills (Knotek, 2005). For example, Martson et al. (2003) conducted a
study on the PSM version of RTI in Minneapolis noting the impact of professional
development. The study results indicate that in order to effective implement PSM,
general education teachers need to receive PSM procedure training. One method
used in the study to expand professional development was for teachers and staff
members to participate in ongoing, school wide staff development trainings during
staff meetings. Another method was to train a team of lead staff members; then, the
lead training team becomes the school site trainers who continually train all other
staff members (Martson et al., 2003).
Marston (2005) also examined the tiered RTI intervention models and
discovered that professional development was paramount to RTI implementation for
all three models. Also, professional development was a tier I intervention for
teachers in two studies conducted by O’Connor et al. (2005a) and O’Connor et al.
(2005b). The teachers were provided with professional development in the area of
reading so that they could implement their new knowledge during their whole class
44
reading instruction. Furthermore, Burns and Ysseldyke (2005) examined the role of
professional development in large-scale RTI models. They also agree that a
multidisciplinary collaborative team needs to be developed so that the team can
assist the school in progressing through the implementation phases. Similarly,
researchers indicate the need for a RTI leadership team (Fuchs et al., 2003; Pavri &
Richards, 2006; Tilly, 2007a). For example, the collaborative RTI team would be in
charge of the RTI implementation process at the school site. The team would set
goals, develop an intervention plan, analyze the data results and would have the role
of communicating the process to the entire school staff as well as to the community
(Fuchs et al., 2003; Tilly, 2007a).
In addition to professional development and the establishment of an RTI
leadership training team, district and principal leadership is also necessary to help
sustain RTI efforts (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Hilton, 2007;
LRP Publications, 2007; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). Specifically, the district must
provide the long range planning support in order for RTI implementation to be
successful at the school site (LRP Publications, 2007). Moreover, the role of the site
principal is to “. . . be the instructional leader who models [RTI] procedures and
decision-making” (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005, p. 14). The site level leader fosters
45
RTI implementation by developing a shared vision for the school that facilitates
teacher buy-in and establishes long term commitment to RTI (Burns & Ysseldyke,
2005). Additional research is still needed in this area to determine the impact that
district and site level leadership have on the successfulness of RTI implementation
(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003).
Resources also contribute to program implementation. Ardoin et al. (2005)
studied a three phase RTI model. They determined that having a lack of resources
including the resource of time impacts a school’s ability to implement and evaluate
RTI effectively. Furthermore, Tilly (2006) suggests that with the tiered RTI model,
resources should be allocated to meet students’ needs. For instance, a student
receiving a tier III intervention requires more resources than a student receiving a tier
I intervention. Schools must prepare, plan, and allocate funds appropriately to
support student achievement. Thus, the factors of professional development,
leadership, and resources affect RTI implementation, and to sustain RTI
implementation a school must have “. . . strong principal leadership, proper teaching
training, and adequate resources in maintaining the reform” (Sindelar, Shearer,
Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006, p. 330). More research needs to be conducted to
determine if additional factors also influence the successfulness of RTI
implementation.
46
Summary of RTI Research
The review of the RTI studies in the above section indicates that RTI impacts
student achievement. The significance of the effect of RTI on student achievement
varies from study to study. In general, the research indicates that students who
participate in a tiered intervention for at least an eight week period are more likely to
experience an increase in their learning outcomes (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Denton
et al., 2006; Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; O’Connor, 2000; O’Connor et al., 2005a;
O’Connor et al., 2005b; Torgesen et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2003; Vaughn et al.,
2005; Vaughn et al., 2006a; Vaughn et al., 2006b; Vaughn et al., 2006c; Vellutino et
al., 2006). Furthermore, the use of explicit and intensive RTI intervention has a
more significant impact on achievement than a less intensive and unstructured
intervention program (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Healy et al., 2005; Linan-
Thompson et al., 2006; O’Connor, 2000; O’Connor et al., 2005a; Torgesen et al.,
2001; Vaughn et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 2006a; Vaughn et al., 2006b; Vaughn et
al., 2006c).
Factors that Influence Implementation of Educational Reform
As the literature on RTI makes clear, there are factors that enhance or inhibit
the implementation of this reform. For instance, Hollenbeck (2007) suggests that
resources and training are necessary for RTI implementation while Stecker (2007)
indicates that leadership is vital to support RTI implementation. Fuchs and Deshler
47
(2007) also propose that professional development, administration support, district
support, and time are important RTI implementation factors. However, the literature
base on implementation factors with respect to RTI is fairly small, and hence we
need to look a bit more broadly at other studies of educational reform to get a fuller
sense of the factors that influence implementation.
Since the 1980s, multiple reform efforts have been initiated to improve
American education (Borman et al., 2003; Datnow et al., 2005; Desimone, 2002).
Today, one current approach to educational reform emphasizes scientifically-based
whole school reform model (Borman et al., 2003; Datnow, 2000; Datnow, Borman,
Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003; Datnow et al., 2005; Desimone, 2002;
Hansel, 2000; McChesney & Hertling, 2000; Odden, 2000). The purpose of the
reform is “. . . reorganizing and revitalizing entire schools rather than on
implementing a number of specialized, and potentially uncoordinated, school
improvement initiatives” (Borman et al., 2003, p. 126-127). Whole-school
improvement involves reforming instruction, assessment, classroom management,
professional development, parental involvement, school management, and
curriculum (Desimone, 2002; Sterbinsky et al., 2006).
A great deal has been written about the factors that affect the implementation
of whole school reform initiatives, in particular comprehensive school reform (CSR)
models. Since there is not much written about the factors that influence the
implementation of RTI, we can turn to literature on CSR as a guide for what factors
might be important as RTI is also a school wide reform effort. Researchers have
48
studied implementation factors of the different CSR models in order to determine
how to effectively implement and sustain reform efforts. Successful schools
implementing comprehensive school reform exhibit specific factors, and those
factors influence the success of reform implementation. The key, essential factors
that enhance reform implementation are: teacher buy-in and commitment, district
and site level leadership, school culture and climate, professional development,
accountability mandates, teaching and learning, parent involvement, and funding and
resources (Datnow et al., 2005; Datnow & Castellano, 2001; Desimone, 2000;
Desimone, 2002; Kirby, Berends, & Naftel, 2001; Smith, Maxwell, Lowther,
Hacker, Bol, & Nunnery, 1997; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000).
Teacher Buy-in and Commitment
First of all, teacher buy-in and commitment impacts reform implementation
(Datnow, 2000; Datnow et al., 2005; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Desimone, 2000;
Sterbinsky et al., 2006; Vernez et al., 2006). Teacher buy-in is essential to reform
efforts because it helps maintain reform momentum (Appelbaum & Schwartzbeck,
2002). Datnow (2000) studied the effects of politics on school reform at 22 schools
in Sunland County Public Schools and Memphis City Schools. Eleven of the schools
adopted reforms as a mandate of the district while four adopted a particular reform
because the district was “advertising” it. The other seven schools adopted reforms
based on principal selection. The district’s required that the staff vote to adopt the
reform model; an 80% percent vote was needed in Sunland while a 90% leadership
vote along with a 60% teacher vote was needed in Memphis. In both districts there
49
was a “. . . lack of genuine teacher buy-in at the outset [which] predictably
negatively impacted the success of the implementation of the reform” (Datnow,
2000, p. 362). Thus, reforms are more stable when districts do not mandate reform
adoption, but instead encourage and support teacher buy-in. Kirby et al. (2001)
conducted a longitudinal study of CSR implementation, and the findings indicate that
teacher support for the reform design has statistical significance. Two additional
studies suggest that reform efforts may decline and even die out when there is a lack
of teacher buy-in (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et al., 2003).
To promote teacher buy-in, researchers note that educators must think about
reforms as long-term school change, districts must understand the difference between
supporting and mandating reform, schools should lengthen reform decision making
time, schools need to provide site staff with additional reform information prior to
adoption, and schools must increase teacher involvement in the reform process
(Datnow, 2000). Also, teachers need to participate in the reform selection process in
order to increase their understanding (Datnow et al., 2005; Desimone, 2000).
Datnow et al. (2005) states, “The more participatory the adoption process as far as
teachers are concerned, the more likely it is that there will be support and enthusiasm
for implementation” (p. 7). In other words, Hilton (2007) implies that
50
Implementation of change by a teacher was most likely to occur when the
change fit in with the teacher’s beliefs or teaching style . . . [and] teachers
who were viewed as leaders by other teachers play[ed] an important role in
providing resources and encouragement to other teachers, and therefore
facilitate[d] the implementation and continuation of changes within a school
(p. 19).
With respect to RTI implementation, one might therefore ask whether teachers were
part of the adoption process.
District and Site Level Leadership
Another factor that affects implementation is superior district and site level
leadership (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et al., 2005; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000;
Desimone, 2000; Ross, Troutman, Hogan, Maxwell, Laitinen, & Lowther, 1997;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Vernez et al., 2006). According to Sindelar et al. (2006),
Districts that show strong commitment to a reform recognize schools for
adopting new practices and take measures to ensure that principals follow
through. Both actions have been linked to sustained use of reforms. In
contrast, innovations stand less chance of survival when districts are not
committed to them . . . (p. 318).
Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) determined that effective schools exhibit effective
leadership; the same is true of schools engaged in reform efforts. Specifically, the
components of effective principal leadership include being firm and purposeful,
involving others in the process, exhibiting instructional leadership, monitoring
frequently, and selecting and replacing staff (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000).
51
In addition, Datnow et al. (2005) conducted a longitudinal case study to
examine the CSR implementation process in 12 schools to identify key factors,
including district and site leadership, that support the implementation of CSR. The
results suggest that both district and principal leadership is needed to sustain CSR
implementation (Datnow et al., 2005). Other studies also indicate that to sustain
reform efforts, strong district and principal leadership must exist (Datnow &
Castellano, 2001; Desimone, 2000; Kirby et al., 2001; Ross et al., 1997; Smith et al.,
1997). Datnow and Stringfield (2000) indicate that principals need to be leaders of
the reform, encourage teachers to choose a reform that meets the strengths and needs
of the school, and provide professional development for the teachers. Kirby et al.
(2001) also determined that implementation levels are higher for schools in which
teachers perceive a high level of principal leadership. Thus, leadership is an
essential key to effectively implementing the reform because “. . . the principal [and
district administrators are the] active and ongoing supporter[s] of reform . . .”
(Datnow & Castellano, 2001, p. 221).
Leadership stability affects the implementation and sustainability of the
reform (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et al., 2003). In particular, leadership turnover
contributes to the termination of reform efforts in schools (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et
al., 2003; Slavin, 2004). For instance, in Datnow’s (2000) study of school reform,
the superintendents in two districts supported the reform efforts initially, yet after the
superintendent left the Sunland district, the district support for the reform efforts
died. In another study, Datnow (2005) determined that initial district support
52
facilitated reform implementation, yet when the leadership changed at district,
support for reform implementation declined due to a shift in priorities. Therefore,
both site leadership and district support impact the success of the reform
implementation and ensure the sustainability of the reform (Datnow, 2000; Datnow,
2005; Datnow & Castellano, 2001; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Datnow et al., 2003;
Datnow et al., 2005; Kirby et al., 2001; Smith et al., 1997; Teddlie & Reynolds,
2000). In regards to RTI implementation and sustainability at a given school site,
leadership is necessary to promote and support the reform efforts. Hilton (2007)
states,
For RTI to be successful implemented and sustained in California, leadership
will be critical. . . . District should support, through top-level leadership, the
implementation policies that encourage portions of RTI implementation at
local model sites. . . . Principals will be an essential component in both
implementation and sustainability of RTI (p. 17).
School Culture and Climate
School culture and climate is another factor that contributes to the success of
reform implementation. To sustain implementation in one’s school, Hollenbeck
(2007) states, “. . . [maintain] a supportive environment with opportunities for
collaboration between peers, administrative backing, student cooperation, and a link
to student outcomes” (p. 144). When selecting a reform, schools need to match the
reform approach to the culture, beliefs, and needs of the school (Datnow et al., 2005;
Smith et al., 1997; Sterbinsky et al., 2006). To produce a positive school culture, the
components, according to Teddlie and Reynolds (2000), include creating a shared
vision, facilitating an orderly school environment, and using positive reinforcement.
53
Datnow and Stringfield (2000) conducted a study to identify characteristics
that increase the success of reform implementation. In the study, they determined
that when facilitating a school change environment, schools proceed through three
key stages which are adopting of the reform design, implementing of the reform, and
ensuring reform sustainability. It was concluded that schools are more successful in
implementing the reform if they choose a reform design that is based on existing
conditions and the school culture (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). To implement and
sustain CSR reform, “. . . it needs to become part of the fabric of a school, not just
another passing fad” which occurs through reculturing and restructuring the school
(Datnow & Springfield, 2000, p. 196). Yet, lack of time and lack of design options
are two barriers that may affect implementation success. Overall, school culture
impacts reform efforts. “. . . schools with shared vision and cultures of
communication and shared decision making, and schools that involve teachers in the
design of an innovation, are more likely to sustain innovations,” commented Sindelar
et al. (2006, p. 316). To implement RTI successfully, schools must match their given
values and beliefs with the values and beliefs associated with RTI. If compatibility
exists, it is more likely that the RTI will be sustainable beyond initial
implementation.
Professional Development
As noted in the review of RTI research, professional development impacts
reform implementation. To obtain long term implementation success, “sustained
continual professional development is required . . .” (Lose, 2007, 278). Smith et al.
54
(1997) studied early implementation success and found out that teachers are more
satisfied with reform efforts when they are provided with initial training. Hence,
ongoing professional development throughout the implementation process facilitates
reform satisfaction among teachers (Smith et al., 1997). To experience program
growth and sustain reform efforts, schools must engage in developing professional
and management skills for all staff members by providing school staff with ongoing
professional development; the professional development trainings encourage the
staff to incorporate new ideas and materials into their teaching (Desimone, 2000;
Slavin, 2004; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). In another study, Datnow et al. (2005)
suggest that CSR implementation is not successful when “. . . teachers [have] little
knowledge about the reform or how it might cause them to change their classroom
practice” (Datnow et al., 2005, p. 8). It is essential that the reform design team, the
leadership team, or reform facilitator provide professional development to school site
staff, which may include on-site training, training at another location, or local district
training, in order to facilitate a successful implementation (Datnow et al., 2005).
Supovitz and May (2004) examined the implementation of America’s Choice
CSR model, and their findings are particularly pertinent to the topic of professional
development. Specifically, they studied the teacher level and school level factors
associated with the implementation of America’s Choice at 114 elementary schools,
kindergarten through sixth grade, in Plainfield, New Jersey. Teachers at those
schools completed surveys that discussed implementation. The Plainfield teachers’
survey results were compared to a national random sample of similar teachers. The
55
findings indicate that there was more variation in the implementation among teachers
in a given school compared to variation in implementation between schools. The
variation may exist because all teachers at a school site may not implement all the
reform components. In other words, there may be varying degrees of reform
implementation in the different classrooms at a particular school which may be due
to a lack of ongoing professional development since “. . . well-implemented reforms
tend to have strong professional development and training components” (Borman et
al, 2003, p. 131). Thus, ongoing professional development enables teachers to gain
new knowledge and help sustain reform efforts. “Like principals, teachers will
require training and support in this [RTI] endeavor. . . . Beyond the initial training
for implementation, teachers will need ongoing inservice-along with the supportive
policies of leadership-if they are to be successful,” commented Hilton (2007, p. 17).
So, one might ask whether or not schools implementing RTI are providing teachers
and staff members with the necessary initial and ongoing professional development
trainings that will enable them to effective implement RTI.
Accountability Mandates
District and state accountability and policy decisions also influence reform
implementation (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et al., 2003; Datnow et al., 2005; Datnow &
Stringfield, 2000). Datnow (2005) examined the influences of state and district
policies on the sustainability of CSR. Sunland schools implemented CSR reform as
a result of new state accountability policies and their low school ranking. The
findings suggest that reform sustainability varied for schools that implemented CSR
56
reform to respond to new accountability demands (Datnow, 2005; Datnow et al.,
2005). So, “. . . the continued implementation of CSR often depends on whether the
reforms help schools meet accountability demands and whether test score gains are
realized” (Datnow et al., 2005, p. 13). In another study, some schools felt that they
had to adopt a specific reform design because the district favored it or accountability
demands placed on schools forced them to implement a specific reform (Datnow &
Stringfield, 2000). Yet, schools that were forced to adopt a reform design
experienced lower levels of implementation. Thus, in order for reform
implementation, including RTI, to be successful and sustainable, it needs to be
compatible to current accountability demands as well as foster and enhance student
achievement. Hence, RTI is compatible since “. . . this is a federal mandate for
change, which in all probability will be embodied in both IDEA and NCLB” (Hilton,
2007, p. 18).
Teaching and Learning
Additionally, a focus on teaching and learning impacts reform
implementation. To foster effective teaching, teachers must maximize class time,
use grouping strategies, incorporate best practices, and adapt practices (Teddlie &
Reynolds, 2000). Also, teachers and staff members need to set high expectations for
students and themselves. When implementing a reform, effective schools focus on
learning which includes mastering academics standards and maximizing the learning
time. In other words, teachers translate reform into classroom practices (Datnow et
57
al., 2005). And it is the professional development related to the reform that provides
teachers with the necessary strategies and skills to enhance teaching and learning in
the classroom. To sustain RTI, schools will likely need to continue to enhance
teaching and learning in order to support the reform efforts.
Parent Involvement
Another factor that contributes to reform implementation is parent
involvement. Smith et al. (1997) studied programs that experienced early
implementation success. The authors found out that when teachers perceive an
increased parent involvement at the school site, then the reform implementation
environment is perceived as more positive (Smith et al, 1997). Additionally, Teddlie
and Reynolds (2000) studied characteristics of effective and ineffective schools and
determined that parental involvement contributes to the effectiveness of a school.
The components of parental involvement, buffering negative influences and
encouraging positive interactions, impact school effectiveness. To promote parent
involvement, Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) believe that schools should have an open
door policy for families and the community. It is important for schools that are
implementing RTI to examine the role in which families and the community
participate in the school culture and school change process.
Funding and Resources
Funding and resources also support reform implementation (Datnow et al.,
2005; Slavin, 2004) since “resources are critical to any reform effort . . .” (Desimone,
2000, p. 24). Datnow et al. (2005) studied CSR reform implementation at 12
58
schools. Nine of the 12 schools in the study received partial funding through federal
CSR grants to help support reform efforts initially. Schools that only received grants
for design costs were not able to afford school-site costs such as professional
development. Datnow et al. (2005) asserts, “. . . the funding often proved to be
insufficient to fully fund reform efforts and did not last long enough for schools to
get a deep level of change underway” (p. 10). When grant funds are no longer
available, schools are more likely to not continue to implement the reform (Datnow
et al., 2005; Slavin, 2004). Additionally, instead of using grants or federal CSR
funds, schools chose to use Title I monies to fund CSR long-term (Slavin, 2004).
Along with funding the reform design, schools must set aside funds for necessary
resources (Datnow et al., 2005). The needed resources for a school site to effective
implement a reform include professional development, time, curriculum materials,
and evaluation materials (Datnow et al., 2005). The effective implementation of RTI
also stems from the use of appropriate funding and necessary resources. Thus, it is
necessary for schools implementing RTI to develop principal leadership, district
support, teacher commitment, and provide the necessary resources that will
contribute to the overall success and sustainability of the reform.
Policy Attributes Affecting Implementation
Desimone (2002) analyzed multiple CSR implementation studies to
determine the main policy components impacting implementation. The five
components are specificity, consistency, authority, power, and stability.
59
Specificity refers to prescriptiveness of the policy. The three main factors of
specificity of CSR implementation are the development design, level and type of
professional development, and monitoring. Desimone (2002) found that externally
developed CSR designs are implemented faster and have better results than local
CSR designs since local designs require extensive time and planning. Also, schools
that participated in whole-school professional development had higher
implementation levels.
Secondly, consistency refers to policy coherence. The reform needs to match
reform efforts at the school, district, and state level. In other words, if the reform
does not compliment the school culture or the district does not support the reform
effort, the implementation will not be successful. Thus, “. . . schools that made
greater progress were the ones that were able to connect ongoing state-, district-, and
school-level reform efforts with the CSR design” (Desimone, 2002, p. 444).
Desimone (2002) indicates that “policies gain authority through becoming
law, through their consistency with social norms, through knowledge or support from
experts, or through promotion by charismatic leaders (p. 439). CSR implementation
authority includes the categories of normative, individual, and institutional.
Normative authority focuses on active teacher participation to facilitate CSR
ownership. So, teachers must have a say in the reform design in order to ensure their
“buy-in” and commitment to implementing the reform. Principal leadership,
individual authority, is also a key aspect of authority. These leaders communicate
with teachers, have site autonomy, and obtain the necessary resources in order to
60
encourage CSR implementation. Schools that experienced higher levels of
implementation success had strong principal leaders. Institutional authority is
referred to as the district support and leadership. The district plays a critical role in
fostering reform efforts. In particular, they set the tone, establish expectations,
allocate funds, and provide necessary resources.
Power is another policy component. Desimone (2002) state, “Power is tied to
the rewards and sanctions associated with policies, such as monetary incentives (p.
439). Reform efforts tied to money only last as long as the money keeps flowing to
the school. A reform is also less stable in a school when the district mandates it.
Thus, schools that exhibited a balance between authority and power have had more
successful implementation reforms.
Lastly, stability refers to the extent that the policy is constant over time. CSR
stability relates to mobility, environment stability, and reform pace. Mobility,
including student, teachers, principal, and district administrator, negatively affects
implementation. Reform culture is an implementation barrier; if staff members
believe that the reform is only temporary, they do not “buy-in” to the reform nor do
they put forth effort into the reform implementation. In addition, school reform is a
process that does not take place over night; it is generally a five to ten year
implementation process.
The five policy components together with the key factors influence the
successfulness of reform implementation. School that exhibit one or more of the
policy components within their CSR model have a greater chance to experience
61
higher levels of successful implementation as well as the chances increase for
sustaining the reform efforts over time (Desimone, 2002). The policy components
may also be incorporated into the implementation of RTI to foster implementation
success.
Summary
Successful reform efforts are often accompanied by key factors influencing
implementation. For example, when implementing RTI at a school site, one must
incorporate the key factors of teacher-buy, site and district leadership, school culture
and climate, professional development, accountability mandates, teaching and
learning, parent involvement, and funding in order to facilitate implementation
success and ensure reform sustainability. Without those factors, RTI will likely not
sustain long term implementation efforts, but instead may become another reform
that is here today and gone tomorrow. Therefore, the key factors along with the
policy components identified in the literature significantly contribute to and impact
the successfulness of reform implementation.
Measuring and Evaluating Reform Success
To determine if the reform efforts are successful, one must measure the
implementation results of reform because “. . . evaluation [is] an integral component
62
of reform initiatives” (Cicchinelli & Barley, 1999, p. 1). This section will discuss
the steps necessary to measure the success of the reform efforts since “. . . we know
that successfully implementing [and sustaining] educational reforms can be a
challenging enterprise” (Datnow et al., 2005, p. 3). Engaging in an evaluation
process assists educators and schools in measuring reform efforts.
Evaluation Methods
Cicchinelli and Barley (1999) developed a five stage reform evaluation
process to examine the impact of the reform and Ross (2000) created a six step
formative evaluation process. Cicchinelli and Barley (1999) assert, “Evaluation
should not just assess the outcomes and impact of new strategies; it also should guide
the process of implementing and refining reform programs” (p. 1). It is essential that
evaluation is ongoing and embedded in the program operation; an evaluation team
must be established to coordinate and assist in the evaluation process. Cicchinelli
and Barley’s (1999) five stages include: planning the evaluation, designing the
evaluation, conducting the evaluation, reporting the evaluation findings, and using
the finding results. In the first stage, planning evaluation, one needs to define the
evaluation purpose, identify program requirements including federal, state, and
district accountability mandates, develop an understanding of local context such as
the local needs, specific program elements, expectations of the stakeholders,
necessary resources, and consider hiring an evaluation consultant to assist in the
evaluation development. When designing the evaluation, stage two, it is important to
link evaluation to the program, identify evaluation questions, select data sources such
63
as documents and people, and put the plan into action by “. . . defining meaningful
tasks and realistic timelines” (Cicchinelli & Barley, 1999, p. 21). In regards to the
evaluation questions, they should include context, implementation, and outcome
questions since all three components affect the reform success (Cicchinelli & Barley,
1999). Context can be a barrier that affects reform success, so schools need to
examine contextual factors (Appelbaum & Schwartzbeck, 2002; Ross, 2000). Also,
within this stage, it is important to measure the extent that schools use the reform
design appropriately because the degree of implementation impacts the overall
outcomes (Desimone, 2002). In other words, “. . . schools and districts must
evaluate closely and routinely both the implementation of models and the effects of
those models on key indicators such as teaching, learning, parent involvement, and
school climate” (Ross, 2000, p. 2). In stage three, conducting the evaluation, schools
obtain or develop data collection instruments such as interviews, surveys, and
observations, collect data, prepare data for analysis, and analyze data (Cicchinelli &
Barley, 1999). This stage is the most intensive. To report the findings, stage four,
the school or the evaluation team organizes the findings, selects the appropriate
format for reporting the findings, frames the findings as recommendations, and
disseminates the findings. In stage five, encouraging the use of the findings, the
evaluation team must create time to discuss the findings with staff members, parents,
community, and/or district administration, revise the evaluation plan when
necessary, and determine how the findings will be used.
64
To conduct formative assessment, monitoring progress, the steps include
designing an evaluation plan including the objectives and purpose, designing the
methodology, collecting the data, analyzing data and interpreting the results,
reporting the results and gathering feedback, and using data to promote continuous
improvement (Ross, 2000). According to Teddlie and Reynolds (2000), progress
monitoring for assessment purposes must occur at the school level, classroom level,
and student level. In particular, Ross (2000) suggests using surveys, interviews, and
observations as the methodology. Also, when designing the methodology, schools
must incorporate a variety of data sources to enhance the evaluation quality. A plan
should be developed to assist the evaluation team with the data collection; the plan
may include timelines and dates. After the data is collected, the team complies,
summarizes, and codes the data; the findings are then shared with stakeholders.
Mostly importantly, the findings are used to revise and improve the program.
The research has suggested that there are some commonalities in regards to
evaluating and measuring reforms efforts. A variety of methods can be used to
measure reform progress and overall outcomes (Appelbaum & Schwartzbeck, 2002).
One way that schools monitor reform implementation progress is by setting targets
using benchmarks since the benchmarks can be used to assess the impact of the
reform (Desimone, 2002; Ross, 2000; Schwartzbeck, 2002). Schools also can use
both summative and formative evaluation when evaluating the impact of a reform;
summative evaluation assesses the final or overall results while formative evaluation
assesses progress monitoring during reform implementation (Ross, 2000).
65
Additionally, some of the most common data collection methods include
observation, surveys, and longitudinal data. Once the school collects data, then the
evaluation team analyzes it to measure the impact of the reform (Cicchinelli &
Barley, 1999, p. 21). Data analysis “. . . involves interpreting sets of findings and
looking across them to better understand them . . .” (Cicchinelli & Barley, 1999, p.
32). Overall, three key evaluation tips that schools need to remember when
evaluating and measuring reform success consist of using multiple assessment
measures, conducting ongoing evaluation, and sharing the results with stakeholders
(Ross, 2000).
Summary
Thus, the importance of measuring school reform is that “. . . evaluations
support ‘data-driven’ decisionmaking by schools, administrators, parents, and
communities by providing information on [the impact of a program and] how well a
[program] can be improved over time” (Ross, 2000, p. 1). To determine the
successfulness of RTI implementation, schools must measure the reform efforts by
engaging in ongoing evaluation. Specifically, schools must plan, design, and
conduct an evaluation of RTI; then the school leadership team or evaluation team
analyzes the evaluation findings, reports them to stakeholders, and determines how
to effectively use the findings to revise and improve RTI at the school site.
66
Conclusion
Summary
The reviewed literature above provides an overview of RTI, the factors that
contribute to reform implementation, and the methods one can use to measure and
evaluate reform implementation. In particular, the major focus of the literature is on
implementing the RTI model to impact student achievement. To summarize, “. . .
studies have shown that RTI methods are effective for resolving the learning
difficulties of most children and providing important information about those who
need additional instruction and/or assessment” (Brown-Chidsey, 2005, p. 252).
In the first section, various RTI models or approaches are discussed. The
standardized protocol approach is compared to the problem solving approach. It is
determined that the responsiveness to intervention varies between the two
approaches since standardized protocol facilitates prevention and quality control
whereas the problem solving approach identifies students’ individual needs and
refers for special education services sooner. Additionally, four large scale RTI
problem solving approach studies are analyzed, yet the studies are not conclusive as
to whether or not large scale RTI implementation significantly affects student
learning. Another sub-section of the research focuses on RTI implementation for
students with reading disabilities. The results from the multiple studies indicate that
intensive small group or individual reading intervention positively influences the
67
students’ reading achievement. Furthermore, additional research examines RTI use
with EL subgroup populations. The findings determine that explicit, systematic, and
intensive reading instruction significantly impacts the reading achievement of EL
students. Finally, factors influencing RTI implementation are discussed; increasing
professional development, sustaining district and site leadership, and providing
necessary resources are key factors that impact the implementation.
In the second section, the literature reviewed key factors that affect reform
implementation. In particular, the key factors associated with successfulness of the
reform implementation are: teacher buy-in, district and site level leadership, school
culture and climate, professional development, accountability mandates, teaching
and learning, parent involvement, and resources along with funding.
In final section, methods for measuring and evaluating reform
implementation are reviewed. Specifically, educators can use the five stage reform
evaluation process or the six step formative evaluation process to measure and
evaluate reform implementation. Most importantly, reform measurement and
evaluation must consist of frequent data collection and ongoing progress monitoring.
Questions to be Answered
The questions that still need to be answered are: What key factors
significantly impact and facilitate the success of RTI implementation? What factors
help schools sustain RTI implementation efforts long-term?
68
Purpose of the Study
Thus, the overall purpose of the proposed study is to investigate how and
why the two purposefully selected elementary school sites implemented RTI. In
particular, the study will examine the factors that facilitate and/or hinder the
successfulness of RTI implementation at the sites since there is a lack of research in
the area of RTI that has studied and analyzed the key factors that affect
implementation success and sustainability.
69
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection
procedures, and data analysis process for this study. The purpose of this study was
to investigate the successes and challenges of the Response to Instruction (RTI)
model to better understand the purpose behind the implementation and use of RTI in
meeting the needs of at-risk students. In particular, this study provided an in-depth
description of RTI implementation. Two southern California elementary schools
within the same school district were studied to determine the results for the following
research questions:
1. How has each school site implemented RTI?
2. How does RTI fit with the schools’ plans for improving the achievement
of at-risk students?
3. What factors have facilitated and/or hindered the implementation of RTI?
4. How is each school measuring the implementation and results of RTI?
The method for this study consisted of a qualitative case study in which I
extensively examined the implementation of RTI. When researchers are interested in
exploring, explaining, and describing a phenomenon within a real-life context, a case
study method is employed (Merriam, 1998). In other words, a case study is
particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic since it focuses on a particular situation,
event, program, or phenomenon, expresses rich details, and illuminates the
phenomenon (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998). Case study research is used when
70
one is studying change and the process and when “how” and “why” questions are
being asked (Yin, 2003). Hence, a qualitative case study was an appropriate design
since this study investigated how RTI was implemented at the two selected school
sites. Specifically, I was interested in studying the descriptive details of RTI
implementation from the perspectives of the teachers and the RTI leadership team
facilitators. Using the case study research method allowed me to triangulate data
from multiple sources, creating a more complete understanding of the phenomenon.
This was a “unique” case study that described the implementation of RTI at two
single school sites in which data was collected through interviews, observations, and
document analysis.
Sample and Population
The sample for this study focused on two single elementary school sites
located within one southern California school district. The two school sites were
selected based on purposeful sampling so that they would provide an information
rich case study (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). In particular, the
samples were unique samples which is defined as a “. . . unique, atypical, perhaps
rare attributes or occurrences of the phenomenon of interest” (Merriam, 1998, p. 62).
The selected samples consisted of two elementary school sites that have
implemented the RTI model for at least two consecutive school years as well as it
attributed achievement growth, based on the reduction with special education
services, to the implementation of RTI.
71
The sample sites were Walnut Elementary School and Laurel Elementary
School which are both in Lake Unified School District
1
. Both sites were located
within the southern section of Los Angeles County. Based on the 2006 California
Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) (2005), the student demographics at Walnut
were 9% Asian, 3% Pacific Islander, 7% Filipino, 62% Hispanic, 9% Black, 44%
White, and 3% multiple ethnicities. The school served approximately 635 students
in grades kindergarten through sixth (Lake Unified School District, 2005-2006). The
school implemented the RTI model for the past four school years including this
current year. In particular, the RTI model was introduced, conceptualized, and
defined during the 2003-2004 school year (Special Education Teachers Partnership
Symposium, 2006). Since then, they have refined and expanded their RTI
implementation to enhance their screening, tiered interventions, progress monitoring,
and assessment. Since 2002, they have increased their API score by 108 points; they
had an API score of 624 in 2002, and the API score increased to 732 in 2006
(California Department of Education, 2006).
At Laurel, the student demographics were 64% Asian, 10% Filipino, 8%
Hispanic, 4% Black, 8% White, and 6% multiple ethnicities (CBEDS, 2005). The
school’s student population consisted of approximately 707 students in grades
kindergarten through sixth (Lake Unified School District, 2005-2006). Laurel
started implementing the RTI model two years ago in order to better serve their small
1
For the purposes of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for district, school, and person names.
72
population of special education students as well as serve students struggling in
regular education classrooms. Laurel’s API score in 2004 was 934, and since 2005
when they began implementing RTI their API score has increased each year by a few
points. In 2007, their API score was 948. Laurel and Walnut also attributed
achievement growth to a decrease in special education services. Table 1 shows the
special education statistics prior to RTI implementation in 2003 for Walnut and 2004
for Laurel along with the statistics after implementing RTI for a couple of school
years at each school site. In particular, the special education statistics consisted of
the number of SSTs
2
that were administered annually and the number of RSP
students serviced at Laurel and Walnut respectively.
Table 1. Special Education Statistics at Laurel and Walnut
____________________________________________________________________
Laurel Walnut
SSTs RSP students SSTs RSP students
____________________________________________________________________
2003 53 54
2004 63 56 45 48
2005 -* -* 14 34
2006 3 7 1 28
____________________________________________________________________
Note: *Data were not available.
2
SST is defined as Student Study Team. It is a group of school site staff members who meet to
discuss an individual student’s academic needs.
73
To gain access to both school sites, I contacted the two site principals by
telephone and email to gain approval and permission to conduct this study at their
sites. I taught in the district for one year during the 2005-2006 school year, however,
I do not have any professional or personal acquaintances at Walnut or Laurel
Elementary School. To conduct research on RTI implementation at the two selected
school sites, I also obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
through the University of Southern California.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection for this study consisted of interviews, observations, and
document analysis. Interviews were the primary data source. Individuals who were
a part of the RTI leadership/implementation team at each school site were
interviewed individually. Semi-structured interviews, a mix of structured and
unstructured questions, were conducted with RTI team facilitators at each site
(Merriam, 1998). An interview protocol was developed and adapted for different
participants; one protocol was used to interview teachers and the other protocol was
used to interview the site administrators. The interview protocols are included in
Appendices A and B.
At Walnut, the interviewees were the principal, a former RSP teacher, the
retired school psychologist, a kindergarten teacher on special assignment who also
serves as the assistant principal for the current school year, two sixth grade teachers,
and one paraeducator. At Laurel, the interviewees were the principal, the current
RSP teacher, a former RSP teacher, the general education RTI coordinator who also
74
teaches first grade 80% of the week, another first grade teacher, and one fifth grade
teacher. The above participants at both school sites were selected for the interviews
because they each have fulfilled an RTI role at their school site as well as they each
have contributed to school wide RTI implementation. The purpose of interviewing
those key RTI team facilitators was to determine their individual thoughts regarding
the implementation of the RTI model at their school site.
Hence, a total of seven individuals, who are facilitators on the RTI team,
were interviewed at Walnut while a total of six individuals were interviewed at
Laurel. The thirteen interviews were conducted for appropriately 30 to 60 minutes at
a time and location that was determined by the interviewer and the interviewee; the
interviews focused on the RTI implementation process at each school site along with
its impact on student achievement for at-risk students. Each interview was tape
recorded; at the same time while conducting the interview, I took notes. After the
interviews were completed, they were transcribed verbatim.
The second data collection strategy consisted of observations. I contacted the
Laurel principal, and he invited me to attend one of the bimonthly RTI leadership
team discussion meetings. One Friday morning, I observed the Laurel principal,
general education RTI coordinator, and RSP teacher discuss RTI during their Friday
RTI leadership team meeting. Specifically, they discussed RTI progress for this
school year, intervention funding, and future RTI goals and plans for the upcoming
school year. The observation took place for two and half hours in the general
education RTI coordinator’s office on a Friday morning. During the observation, I
75
jotted down notes based on the observation protocol. On the contrary, I tried
contacting the Walnut principal multiple times over a two month period by both
telephone and email to schedule a time to observe an RTI team meeting, but the
principal never returned any of the emails or telephone calls. Thus, I did not conduct
an observation at Walnut. The observation protocol is included in Appendix C.
After the observation was completed, the data was coded based on the research
questions.
A third data collection strategy included analyzing documents that each
school site has used and currently uses to implement RTI. In particular, past and
present created RTI forms included the five year plan, flow charts, the yearly
timeline, RTI level of tiers chart, progress monitoring reports, an informational chart
of benchmark tests for each grade level, AIMSweb assessment information including
charts and graphs, universal screening charts, RTI intervention decision handout,
RTI teacher informational fliers, parent RTI informational fliers and notes, RTI
curriculum flier summaries, and RTI Power Point presentations were gathered,
analyzed, and coded. In addition, state assessment and accountability reports,
including API, AYP, CST, and school reports containing special education referral
statistics were collected as additional document evidence. All collected documents
were photocopied whenever possible. Lastly, a content analysis was conducted for
each collected document. The document protocol is located in Appendix D.
76
Data Analysis Procedures
Merriam (1998) asserts, “Data analysis is the process of making sense out of
the data” (p. 178). In other words, “qualitative analysis transforms data into
findings” (Patton, 2002, p. 432). Hence, all collected data from the study was
analyzed and coded to examine themes in the data (Merriam, 1998). Specifically,
the interviews were transcribed and the data was coded based on the established
research questions for the study. Also, the gathered documents were analyzed and
coded based on the research questions. I used HyperResearch qualitative data coding
software to facilitate the coding process. HyperResearch qualitative data allowed me
to sort the data according to codes that I identified before and during the data
analysis process and were based on the research questions. Table 2 shows the codes
that were used to sort and analyze the data in this study along with the frequencies of
each code.
77
Table 2. Codes for this Study.
____________________________________________________________________
Frequency
Specific Codes Laurel Walnut
____________________________________________________________________
Rtiimplementation.steps 36 32
Rtimplementation.involvement 61 75
Rtiimplementation.goal 23 15
Rtiimplementation.reasonswhy 22 16
Atriskimprovement.meetneeds 45 138
Atriskimprovement.progressmonitored 73 50
Atriskimprovement.changedinstruction 31 118
Implementationfactors.success 8 19
Implementationfactors.challenge 16 23
Implementationfactors.profdev 20 46
Implementationfactors.districtrole 17 30
Implementationfactors.siteleadership 48 89
Implementationfactors.teacherrole 68 81
Implementationfactors.teacherbuyin 31 57
Implementationfactors.resources 49 77
Implementationfactors.other 13 6
Implementationfactors.moresuccessful 39 46
Measuringimplementation.assesssment 92 93
Measuringimplementation.evaluationresults 44 49
Measuringimplementation.methodsandtools 27 21
Measuringimplementation.knowitssuccessful 14 12
____________________________________________________________________
I developed the above codes for this study based on this study’s overarching research
question and three sub-research questions. Using the HyperResearch program, I
hand coded both sentences and paragraphs of text that corresponded to the selected
codes. When all the data was coded, I generated a report that sorted the data by
codes. A data report was produced within each code in order to allow for an easy
comparison of responses across the data sources. After generated the report, I then
analyzed the coded data by looking for the common themes that existed within the
78
individual data codes for each school site and across the school sites to determine the
study findings. Additionally, I triangulated my study findings based on the three
sources of collected data, interviews, observations, and documents. After all data
was coded and triangulated, the findings from the data analysis will be discussed in
narrative form using the research questions to organize the data results in Chapters
Four and Five.
Ethical Considerations
As noted above, to follow the ethical standards, IRB approval was obtained
through the University of Southern California along with obtaining site consent from
each principal. I adhered to all IRB rules, regulations, and procedures in order to
maintain the highest degree of ethical standards when conducting this study.
Furthermore, I had each of the twelve participants read the informational consent
sheet prior to conducting the interview; a copy of the informational consent sheet
was given to each participant to keep for his or her records. The informational
consent sheet ensured that each participant understand the overall purpose of study
as well as that his or her participation in the study was voluntary, and at any time he
or she could withdraw from the study (Creswell, 2003). After each participant read
the informational sheet, the participant was asked if he or she had any questions.
None of the participants had questions, so each interview began after the participant
had read the informational sheet and then indicated he or she had no questions.
79
Since this study was conducted at two school sites, I minimized the
anonymity risks. All collected data, including tape recorded interviews, interview
transcripts, observation notes, and documents, was kept confidential. Participants’
names and school site names were changed to guard their true identities. Finally, the
data results presented in the final chapters of the dissertation will also protect the
names and identities of all study participants and school sites.
Limitations of the Study
One major limitation of the proposed study is that it was conducted within a
relatively short period of time, between the month of September and October. Based
on time limitations, the study was conducted at two school sites which may have
influenced the lack of comprehensive results about RTI implementation since
multiple school sites and/or school districts were not be studied. Additionally,
specific factors at the school site and district level may have influenced the ability to
generalize, apply, and transfer the study findings to another similar elementary
school site.
Another limitation that may have existed is my potential bias or subjectivity.
Specifically, I served as an administrative leader and a participant on the RTI
implementation team at the two elementary school sites where I was an assistant
principal. As part of the team, my leadership role was to promote and support the
implementation of RTI at my school sites. Thus, I attempted to not let my
80
subjectivity influence the study at any time. However, I did not study my own
school sites nor did I study any sites within my school district. My purpose in
researching this topic was to gain a more in-depth understanding of the RTI
implementation process in order to enable me as educational leader to use the new
insight and knowledge to enhance the implementation success of RTI at my school
sites.
81
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
Chapter Four presents the findings from this study of the successes and
challenges of implementing the RTI model to meet the needs of at-risk students in
two southern California elementary schools. The focus of the study was to describe
in detail what RTI implementation looks like and compare and contrast the
conditions that facilitated or hindered implementation at each site. The chapter
findings are organized to address the research questions that were posed in Chapter
One. Prior to answering the research questions, some background information
pertaining to the sample school sites will be conveyed to facilitate a better
understanding of the contexts in which the study took place.
School Sites
Laurel and Walnut are both kindergarten through sixth grade elementary
schools in Lake Unified School District
3
. The schools both have large student
populations in comparison to the other elementary schools in the district. Even
3
For the purposes of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for district, school, and person names.
82
though the school sizes are relatively the same, around 700 students, their student
demographics as well as their student needs are extremely diverse. Walnut is a Title
I and Program Improvement (PI)
4
school while Laurel has a higher income
population and has been recognized as a California Distinguished School and a
National Blue Ribbon School.
Background of RTI Set-up at the School Sites
During the 2003-2004 school year, Walnut became the first school in the
district to pilot the implementation of the RTI model because they were in PI.
Although the implementation began that year, the school did not officially refer to
their model as RTI until the 2006-2007 school year. Laurel was the second school in
the district to implement the RTI model; they began RTI implementation during the
2005-2006 school year. At both school sites, the purpose behind the implementation
of the RTI model was to meet the needs of their at-risk students. At Walnut, at-risk
students were the students who were not meeting grade level standards and/or were
not proficient in English Language Arts and mathematics on the California Standards
Test (CST)
5
. On the contrary, Laurel at-risk students were students whose
4
Program Improvement (PI) occurs when a Title I school does not make Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) for two consecutive years in English language arts or mathematics schoolwide or for any
numerically significant subgroup.
5
California Standards Test (CST) is an annual test administered to 2
nd
through 11
th
grade students as
part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) in California.
83
achievement was between the 20
th
and 50
th
percentile in English language arts and
mathematics and/or they may not have met all grade level standards. Since each
school desired to develop and implement a “unique” model to meet the needs of their
at-risk students, the implementation of the RTI model at each school consisted of
similarities and differences.
Research Questions
The remainder of this chapter presents the findings for the overarching
research question and the three research sub-questions. Specifically, the
commonalities and differences between the two school sites for each question are
illuminated. In the first section, the findings address the main overarching question
which is “How has each school site implemented RTI?” The research sub-questions
also are addressed:
1. How does RTI fit with each schools’ plans for improving the achievement
of at-risk students?
2. What factors (e.g. leadership, professional development, teacher support,
district support) have facilitated and/or hindered RTI implementation?
3. How is each school measuring the implementation and results of RTI?
After answering the three sub-questions, a culminating summary of the significant
data findings is presented at the conclusion of this chapter.
84
Addressing the Research Questions
The findings in this study indicated that multiple factors impacted the RTI
implementation at both school sites. Strong principal leadership, teacher buy-in, the
resources of personnel, funding, and technology, and ongoing professional
development enhanced RTI implementation at the two sites whereas district support
challenged the implementation at each site since the district provided initial funding,
but is not disbursing the same amount of funding. In particular, Laurel and Walnut
each implemented the RTI model using similar RTI components, a three-tiered
intervention model, data assessment, and research-based curriculum, which coincides
with a general RTI model description from prior research (Batsche et al., 2006;
Bender, 2008; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hollenbeck, 2007; Mellard et al., 2004; Mellard
& Johnson, 2008) even though NCLB and IDEIA’s description of RTI as a
“scientific research-based intervention” is vague (Public Law 107-110, 2001; Public
Law 108-446, 2004). Both school sites implemented a tier II and tier III pullout
program with paraeducators as the instructors, and they both used universal
screening, benchmark tests, and AIMSweb
6
progress monitoring as their RTI
assessment components. Although the RTI implementation was similar at the two
sites, some implementation differences existed.
6
AIMSweb is a research-based assessment system that provides student performance data based on
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM). It measures basic skills in early literacy and reading.
85
Walnut’s implementation differed from Laurel through their development
and use of leveled, flexible grouping
7
and “between the bells”
8
intervention as their
tier I intervention to target their large population of at-risk students. They also
established a site leadership team to assist staff members with implementation, and
they utilized the psychologist and his team of local university interns to administer
ongoing AIMSweb assessments to at-risk students. In contrast, Laurel implemented
differentiated instruction, tier I intervention, in the classroom to target their at-risk
students. They hired a general education RTI coordinator to assist with all the data
collection, including assessing at-risk students using the AIMSweb progress
monitoring assessments, and to support the staff members with the implementation.
Thus, the implementation of RTI at both sites was alike even though a few minor
differences existed (see Figure 1). This contradicts prior policy implementation
research which has shown that when implementing a policy reform, there is local
variation. The above findings are discussed in more detail in the upcoming sections.
7
Flexible grouping is leveled instruction in language arts for third through sixth grade students.
8
Between the bells is targeted instruction provided two or three times a week for a 40 minute period
to a small group of at-risk students in the kindergarten through second grade classrooms at Walnut.
86
Figure 1. The components of RTI implementation at Laurel and Walnut.
Walnut
Elementary
Laurel
Elementary
RTI
Implementation:
Three-tier model,
Assessment, &
Research-based
curriculum
Tier II
Small group pullout
with paraeducators;
AIMSweb progress
monitoring by
general education
RTI coordinator
Tier III
Individualized
pullout with
paraeducators or RSP
teacher; AIMSweb
progress monitoring
by RTI coordinator
Tier I
Differentiated
instruction in the
classroom; universal
screening assessment
for all students
Tier II
Small group pullout
with paraeducators;
AIMSweb progress
monitoring by
psychologist and
interns
Tier III
Individualized
pullout with
paraeducators or RSP
teacher; AIMSweb
progress monitoring
by psychologist and
interns
Tier I
K-2 between the bells
intervention; 3-6
leveled, flexible
grouping in the
classroom; universal
screening assessment
for all students
87
How has each School Site Implemented RTI?
The majority of the RTI team members agreed that RTI was implemented at
Laurel and Walnut for several reasons: to meet at-risk student needs, comply with
the state guidelines, and accommodate the district’s push for RTI. To implement
RTI, each school developed goals and involved staff members in establishing the
implementation steps. The following section will discuss the reasons for
implementation, the implementation goals, and Laurel and Walnut’s individual
implementation involvement steps.
Reasons for Implementation
RTI was implemented at the two school sites to meet the needs of their at-risk
student population in order “to find what’s best for students in providing their
education,” asserted an RTI team member. Walnut had become a PI school, so
instructional changes needed to be made, in part leading to their implementation of
RTI. In contrast, Laurel was a high achieving school, yet they had students who felt
they were unsuccessful. The principal commented, “We did not have a significant
intervention program . . .” to meet the needs of their struggling students, so they
implemented RTI.
88
According to a few RTI team members at both sites, another reason why RTI
was implemented was that the state and federal government were promoting it. One
teacher remarked, “. . . [the district] said the state of California was no longer in
compliance in the way that we did SSTs
9
and so we were switching over to RTI.”
The RTI team member believed that the SST process was becoming out of control
since students were being brought up to SST left and right.
Although three RTI team members believed that the state and federal
government were promoting RTI, an additional three RTI team members indicated
that the district was behind the implementation push. One teacher remarked, “But,
we were told that eventually the district will say we all have to do it anyway, so we
figured, ‘well, we might as well get used to it now.’” There was some discrepancy
here since some RTI team members believed that the district recommended the
implementation while a few others believed that the district mandated RTI
implementation. One of the RTI team member believing that the district
recommended the implementation stated, “I just know it’s voluntary for now.” On
the contrary, another RTI team member remarked, “I think what the district has tried
to do is that they’ve tried to impose this from the top down . . .” Nevertheless, both
principals indicated that every school site in Lake Unified School District will be
mandated to implement at least one RTI component by the 2008-2009 school year.
9
SST is defined as Student Study Team. It is a group of school site staff members who meet to
discuss an individual student’s academic needs.
89
Goals of Implementation
Each school created their own implementation goals. Laurel and Walnut
shared four common goals: meeting the needs of students, improving reading,
supporting the extremely low achieving students, and facilitating RTI as a general
education function. One additional goal for Laurel was to institute common
assessments across the school.
A majority of the RTI team members explained that the implementation goal
of RTI was to meet the needs of all students. The Laurel principal remarked, “Part
of our goals have been working with our targets for the kids, what our targets are
going to be, and also looking at exit criteria for the program” to meet all students’
needs. One teacher summarized the goal for Walnut as, “I think for each student to
succeed basically and to improve.” The main goal of RTI implementation was to
target their students’ needs at each site.
Another implementation goal that Walnut and Laurel focused on was
improving reading achievement. A Laurel RTI team member remarked, “First and
foremost to identify the students that are possibly at risk in reading.” While a
Walnut RTI team member described the goal as, “. . . the whole goal is for them to
be able to read.” Another Laurel RTI team member stated, with RTI “the main goal
was before we put the low readers into special education [we need to] guide them to
be successful in general education environment and atmosphere by guiding them
with the essential elements of reading.” At the two sites, RTI was implemented to
support reading achievement for at-risk students.
90
According to five of the thirteen RTI team members, supporting the
extremely low performing students was another implementation goal at Laurel and
Walnut. A RTI team member asserted, “So, it was really to pick up the few that had
fallen behind.” Walnut had a large population of extremely low performing students
whereas Laurel had a very small population of low students, yet both groups of low
performing students required their needs to be met, so the goal of RTI was to meet
students’ needs.
Several RTI team members indicated that another significant goal was for
RTI to function primarily at the general education instruction level. According to the
RSP teacher,
The key to success is general education ownership and moving it out of
special education land. . . . If [RTI is used in the] general education [setting],
then they are just thought of as kids who are a little bit slow.
In other words, the goal of the RTI model at each site was to be “. . . a general
education program [in which] special education teachers are just consultants,” stated
another RTI team member.
91
At Laurel, a couple of the RTI team members communicated that developing
common schoolwide assessments was another implementation goal specific to their
school site. One teacher remarked, “Each teacher kind of did their own assessments
on the students to see where they are at. [When] a student switched grade levels, it
was apparent there was no set assessment . . .” The RTI team member believed that
all the Laurel teachers were doing their own assessments, and with the
implementation of RTI school-wide assessments would be used by all staff members
to determine each student’s academic level.
Steps and Involvement
After developing implementation goals, Laurel and Walnut progressed
through several RTI implementation steps. The major steps consisted of planning
and communicating with staff members at staff meetings, developing the three tiers
of intervention, establishing the data assessment component, and facilitating RTI site
leadership.
Planning and communicating at staff meetings. Most RTI team members
mentioned that one of the first steps was to discuss the implementation with the staff
during staff meetings. A RTI team member remarked, “The first step is we had
several staff meetings.” At the meetings, each school discussed the goals and
planned the implementation. One Laurel teacher reflected back on the meetings and
commented, “And they showed us a great Power Point talking about the different
tiered effect, how there is the three tiers, and the teacher needs to do what they can.”
Although the implementation was planned out and communicated to the staff, one
92
challenge that affected RTI implementation at Laurel was a lack of focus. The
Laurel principal explained that it was a struggle to stay on top of all the RTI
implementation components. He asserted, “Probably the biggest challenge is
keeping on top of it, keeping it focused . . .” Lack of focus was not a concern at
Walnut; one teacher explained, “[We] went through the process of what we think our
strengths were and where were our areas that we needed to improve.” After meeting
with the Walnut staff and discussing strengths and areas of improvement, a team of
teachers also met with each grade level which helped create a focus for the
implementation at Walnut.
Developing tier I, tier II, and tier III intervention. The second step of the
implementation at both sites was to develop the tier I, tier II, and tier III
interventions. At Walnut, all but one RTI team member communicated that flexible
grouping for Language Arts was created for the third through sixth grade students as
a tier I intervention while between the bells intervention was developed to provide
tier I intervention for the primary at-risk students. Based on assessment data, third
through sixth grade students were divided into leveled, flexible groups in language
arts so that the teachers could provide tier I intervention in the classrooms. Between
the bells intervention was targeted instruction for K-2 at-risk students that was
provided by the primary classroom teacher.
93
When reflecting back to planning the tier I interventions, one teacher
remarked, “We started four years ago flexible grouping without [calling it] RTI. It
was just that we had such a discrepancy between students, and so we decided to do
flexible grouping.” The first year that Walnut implemented tier I flexible grouping,
it was strictly used in third and sixth grade, and the following two years they added
an additional grade level, fifth and then fourth. After implementing tier I, the Walnut
site leadership team developed the requirements for tier II and tier III. Specifically,
the students who were unsuccessful in the tier I flexible grouping or between the
bells intervention were pulled out to attend tier II intervention with a paraeducator
outside of the general education classroom. If a student was unsuccessful with tier II
interventions, he or she would receive tier III interventions which was highly
individualized instruction with a paraeducator or the RSP teacher. Once Walnut
established the tiered interventions, they began developing the data assessment
component of RTI.
At Laurel, the staff first developed their tier II and tier III pullout
interventions to serve their at-risk students who were unsuccessful in the classroom
setting. In particular, the low 20% of the students that were identified as at-risk were
pulled out of the classroom and provided with tier II intervention. The RSP teacher
described tier II as, “We provided additional support [for] the struggling children
[by] cutting class size down . . . depending on the group.” Similar to Walnut, a
student who was unsuccessful in tier II intervention was then provided with a
pullout, highly individualized tier III intervention; again a paraeducator or the RSP
94
teacher provided the instruction. After developing tier II and tier III, Laurel began to
create tier I intervention for all students. As a staff, they decided to have the
classroom teachers provide differentiated instruction as a tier I intervention within
the classroom to target the needs of the at-risk students. Each teacher’s duty was to
level the instruction in his or her classroom to meet the students’ needs. After
creating the tiered interventions, Laurel also developed the RTI data assessment
component.
Establishing data assessment. The majority of the RTI team members agreed
that another important implementation step included establishing the data assessment
components for the RTI model at each school. The first step for each school was to
create their own universal screening assessment to administer at the beginning of
each school year to identify at-risk students. The universal screening at Walnut
consisted of AIMSweb benchmark assessments, Open Court (the core curriculum)
assessment, CST scores, district writing prompt score, and CELDT
10
scores for EL
students whereas the universal screening at Laurel included AIMSweb benchmark
assessments, CST scores, Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI)
11
, and the district
10
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) is given annually to all English Learners
so as to determine their English language development level.
11
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) assesses students’ reading levels and monitors their reading
progress.
95
writing prompt. The principal at Laurel stated, “We started working with curriculum
based measures more seriously. We went to AIMSweb, and set up screening
processes. The second year we began to put benchmarks into place, and we kept
those benchmarks fairly loose.”
At both sites, all students participated in AIMSweb benchmark assessments
at least three times a year and that data was used to assess student progress. In
addition, three times a year, all students in Lake Unified, including students at Laurel
and Walnut, completed the district’s writing prompt assessment to assess their
writing skills and development. After the benchmarks, district writing prompt, Open
Court, and SRI assessments were administered at the beginning of the school year,
the various assessment scores were combined, and then the two RTI data team
teachers at Walnut and the general education RTI coordinator along with the RSP
teacher at Laurel determined who was at-risk. At Walnut, at-risk students were
identified as the students who scored the lowest on all the universal screening while
at Laurel at-risk students were identified as the students who were at the 50
th
percentile or lower on the universal screening. At each school, the progress of the at-
risk students was monitored frequently using the AIMSweb progress monitoring
assessments. After selecting the RTI data assessments, both sites provided their
96
teachers with assessment training. All Laurel staff members were trained on how to
access, input, use, and administer the AIMSweb benchmark assessment while the
Walnut staff only was trained on how to access and input the data into AIMSweb.
The training was believed to have enhanced the implementation at each site, and it
will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
Facilitating RTI site leadership. About half of the RTI team members
indicated that another implementation step was establishing an RTI leadership team
to assist with implementation efforts and build teacher buy-in. The Laurel principal
commented, “We had an RSP teacher that’s somewhat of an expert on it, and that
was helpful too because she could kind of lead us through what we [were] doing.”
Laurel also hired a classroom teacher to become the general education RTI
coordinator one day a week, and she served on the leadership team. The RSP teacher
and general education RTI coordinator became the promoters of RTI implementation
at Laurel. On the contrary, Walnut began implementing RTI with three key
leadership team members who were the principal, the RSP teacher, and the
psychologist. Walnut also developed a site leadership team which consisted of one
teacher from each grade level, the principal, the RSP teacher, and the psychologist.
The role of the site leadership team was to promote and provide RTI information to
the rest of the school staff.
97
Summary
How and why did Laurel and Walnut implement RTI? In short, RTI was
implemented at Laurel and Walnut with the purpose of meeting the needs of their at-
risk students, complying with the state’s guidelines, and accommodating the push for
RTI from the district. To implement RTI, each school developed implementation
goals. The goals emphasized meeting the needs of students, improving reading,
supporting the extremely low performing students, facilitating RTI as a general
education function, and instituting common assessments at Laurel.
After creating implementation goals, the schools designed their
implementation steps. The first major step was to plan and communicate RTI
implementation with each school staff which occurred during staff meetings at each
site. Secondly, both schools developed tier I, tier II, and tier III interventions. At
Laurel, tier I was differentiated instruction while tier II and tier II were pullout
interventions with paraeducators. Tier I at Walnut consisted of flexible grouping and
between the bells intervention; tier II and tier III were pullout interventions with
paraeducators. The third step was to establish the RTI assessment components
which comprised of AIMSweb benchmark tests, AIMSweb progress monitoring, and
the universal screening. Each school site also established a RTI site leadership team
98
to provide information on RTI as well as promote the implementation. Specifically,
Laurel hired a general education RTI coordinator to serve as a leadership team
member along with the principal and the RSP teacher. Alternatively, Walnut
established a site leadership team that consisted of one teacher from every grade
level, the principal, psychologist, and the RSP teacher, and they provided
information and support to other staff members.
RTI and the Schools’ Plans for Improving At-risk Achievement
The majority of the RTI team members at both Laurel and Walnut explained
that their respective school sites implemented the RTI model to improve at-risk
students’ academic achievement. When asked specifically why Walnut implemented
RTI to improve the achievement of their at-risk students, the principal remarked,
Purely because we had so many kids that were not doing well. They weren’t
being successful in school and we wanted to make sure that we were reaching
all kids and we felt that with the RTI methods . . . that we could reach more
students and improve their educational program.
In contrast, the principal at Laurel stated that they implemented RTI to improve
achievement of at-risk students because
Even though Laurel is a low-need school, if you are an underperforming
student here it’s a tough place. So while the number of students who needed
additional support was small, their need was extremely large because they
really didn’t have a place in the school fabric as an underperforming student.
We have a lot of kids, not a lot, maybe 60 kids, 50 to 60 kids, who feel as
though they are not being successful here.
After analyzing how Laurel and Walnut use RTI to target struggling students, the
three themes that emerged were: meeting the needs of at-risk students, progress
monitoring at-risk students, and changing instruction for at-risk students.
99
Meet the Needs of At-risk Students
RTI was implemented to meet the needs of the at-risk students at both school
sites. The RTI models that were implemented at each school vary slightly even
though the student populations are diverse. At Laurel, the majority of the RTI team
members shared that meeting the at-risk students’ needs was one of the most
successful factors of their RTI implementation. The principal remarked, “Because
we’ve been successful with all students. I think that’s the biggest success, we’re
finding it works for all the students we work with. . . . So, the focus is more on the
kids.” One RTI team member stated, “When we saw the great success from at-risk
children. They were so low. They were not able to read, but through this RTI
program we found out that they improved a lot in their reading . . .” The schools
were successful because the RTI model helped them meet students’ needs. Another
RTI team member commented that RTI was meeting needs because of,
The teachers change in attitude towards under-performing students. They no
longer are ashamed of their inability to meet the students’ needs. They feel
instead participatory in the students’ success. They are more willing to
differentiate in the classroom when they know that there’s meaningful
instruction going on to help meet those needs. They don’t feel like they’re
watering down the curriculum for them anymore. They realize that it’s just
like a cast on a broken leg, eventually it will come off.
By using the RTI model to meet the needs of the at-risk students, the students were
more successful and the teachers also felt that they were more successfully
addressing at-risk students’ needs. To meet the needs of students, each school used
universal screening to identify at-risk students, provided tier I, tier II, and tier III
intervention, and used data assessment to target students’ needs.
100
Identification of at-risk students. At-risk students were identified at Laurel
and Walnut through universal screening assessments. At Walnut, the principal
stated, “We do a universal screening and actually this year we increased it K-6 so
every single child in the school has been tested . . .” After all the students are
assessed, the Walnut RTI data collection team of two teachers “gets the data together
and makes determinations of where to place the students [to determine] if they’re
going to be in a low group, middle, or high [flexible group],” commented a RTI team
member. At Laurel, they also conducted a universal screening for all students to
determine who was at-risk. At-risk students were provided with tier I intervention to
meet their individual needs in the classroom. Once again, both sites used the
universal screening assessments to identify their at-risk target students who were
candidates to receive tier II and/or tier III pullout intervention.
Tier I invention. According to five out of the seven RTI team members at
Walnut, they implemented tier I intervention to meet the needs of their large
population of at-risk students. The Walnut principal explained that the purpose of
the tier I intervention was that
Basically for the at-risk students what happens with the flexible grouping or
between the bells [is that] we specifically meet with those students and they
get the extra time or extra lessons or extra reteaching . . . that they need.
In particular, third grade through sixth grade teachers used tier I flexible grouping
while kindergarten through second grade used tier I between the bells intervention to
meet at-risk needs. To meet needs daily, language arts flexible grouping occurred
“five days a week and I want to say its 45 minutes [long],” stated the principal. With
101
K-2 between the bells intervention, “the teachers are given three 40 minute periods
to work with their under-performing students,” commented a Walnut RTI team
member. To meet students’ needs with tier I intervention, “We slowed down the
curriculum [and] we increased the number of repetitions and we added in additional
supplements” remarked another Walnut RTI team member.
Walnut RTI team members indicated that flexible grouping and between the
bells interventions were viewed as a successful factor that positively impacted the
implementation. It was believed it was successful because the principal, the
psychologist, and the RSP teacher spent one year planning and preparing tier I
intervention prior to implementing it. The principal asserted,
We spent one year planning before implementation and one of the reasons I
think we were success[ful] [with tier I intervention] was that that the first
year we implemented the program, we were ready on day one. Nametags
made, class lists were made, kids had been placed, and it was a very
successful year.
The planning enabled Walnut at-risk students’ needs to be met immediately since
they had taken the time to develop flexible groups to provide appropriate
interventions on the first day of school.
Prior to implementing RTI at Laurel, struggling at-risk students were pulled
out of the classroom to receive supplemental instruction through the resource
specialist pull-out program which was not effectively meeting students’ needs. To
effectively meet their needs, RTI was implemented, and they developed tier I
intervention in which the Laurel classroom teachers were responsible for providing
102
instruction within their lessons to meet the needs of their at-risk students. The
general education RTI coordinator at Laurel remarked that tier I intervention was
Laying the foundation for what we believe is an at-risk student. It’s getting
teachers to realize that those students who are not the Laurel average, that
doesn’t necessarily make them at-risk. It was a great eye-opener for our
school, and it was kind of a difficult pill for us to swallow because for many
years if they weren’t performing, we’d want intervention, we wanted to SST
those students, and I think that in the long run that can cause problems for
kids because if you are identifying, they know when they are being singled
out, and they know when they are being assessed, they are being pulled, and
parents are being pulled, and they are stating to think there must be
something going on here. The students might be a little bit below, maybe not
even a year behind, and just required some extra assistance [and] differentiate
instruction in the classroom.
Laurel was better able to accommodate their at-risk students’ needs through targeting
instruction within tier I of the RTI model. In addition, a couple of teachers indicated
that they were happy to provide differentiated instruction in the classroom since their
students were no longer being pulled out of instruction unnecessarily. One Laurel
teacher remarked, “I think they realize that kids miss a lot of what’s going on in their
classroom when they are gone, and if they are just a little bit behind, being in the
classroom is probably better for them.” Thus, to meet their at-risk students, Laurel
provided differentiated instruction in the classroom as their tier I intervention
whereas tier I intervention was provided through flexible grouping and between the
bells intervention to meet at-risk needs at Walnut.
103
Tier II and tier III interventions. At both Laurel and Walnut, most RTI team
members mentioned that the tier II and tier III intervention were provided to at-risk
students who were unsuccessful in tier I. The Walnut principal stated,
The tier II started [when] we looked at the kids who weren’t doing well with
the flexible groupings or with the between the bells and if they were
struggling we put them into the tier II program. And that is a pull-out
program that we have a paraeducator working with them.
The tier II and tier III intervention occurred outside of the regular education
classroom with the assistance of paraeducators. So, the paraeducators at each site
were the instructors for at-risk students in tier II and tier III. One of the
paraeducators on the RTI team at Walnut described her tier II intervention
instructional role as, “I worked with my groups five days a week and the instruction
was between thirty-five and forty minutes each day and I had the groups every single
day.” Students who were unresponsive to tier II intervention were provided with tier
III individualize instruction. A RTI team member stated, “For some kids [tier I]
wasn’t enough and then we did supplemental tier II pullouts, and tier III for those
really resistive kids [who had] a lack of success in tier II [where] we would further
individualize the program.” Hence, the tier II and tier III interventions are managed
and performed in the same way at Laurel and Walnut.
104
Assessment and data collection. Half of the RTI team members at both
Laurel and Walnut shared that they used assessment and data collection to meet the
needs of the at-risk students. A teacher stated,
I would say RTI really meets the needs of the students and ensures that they
are getting the best education possible [because] we look at data. We have
assessments that are ongoing and help us determine where the students are
doing well or the areas maybe they’re not doing as well, and to make
adjustments for it.
In particular, one Walnut RTI teacher explained that “we have a team, with several
teachers, the principal, the psychologist, where we look at the data and determine
what the students’ needs are.” Along with the team, the two RTI data team teachers
also examined the student data based on the universal screenings to determine
student placement decisions for the flexible grouping in third through sixth grade.
At Laurel, the general education RTI coordinator and the RSP teacher were in
charge of the data collection and the tier II and tier III assessment. Anytime the
students are assessed, “then we will take a look at the data after that, and we track the
students,” remarked the general education RTI coordinator. Another Laurel RTI
team member stated, “So, through using the data and analyzing the data accurately,
we could meet their needs and we could find out what exact area they need to
improve [or] need to work on.” The general education coordinator and RSP teacher
were responsible for assessing at-risk students and determining appropriate tier II or
tier III placements to meet each student’s needs.
105
Therefore, Laurel and Walnut both used data assess students frequently. One
principal asserted, “We keep putting their results into AIMSweb, and we get these
beautiful charts that can show us how the kids are doing, who’s moving up, who’s
not moving up, and we’re really trying to look at that.” The psychologist and the
data team and the general education RTI coordinator and the RSP teacher at Laurel
inputted the data results from the assessments so that they can track the achievement
of their at-risk students.
Monitoring Progress of At-risk Students
To meet the needs of the at-risk students, twelve of the thirteen RTI team
members at the two school sites indicated that the schools continually monitor the
progress of their at-risk students. The RSP teacher who worked at both sites
declared, “We do [progress monitoring] on a student-by-student basis. Reviewing
individual student performance. And, we do it through the progress monitoring in
AIMSweb.” Progress is monitored at each school using the AIMSweb progress
monitoring assessments. One RSP teacher who worked at Laurel and had worked
also at Walnut stated, “At Laurel, they are a high-performing school, so we progress
monitored every three weeks, but at Walnut when I worked with them, we progress
monitored every two weeks.” So, Walnut progress monitored every two weeks
instead of every three weeks because they had a larger population of at-risk students
compared to at-risk population at Laurel.
106
Although each school used AIMSweb to monitor progress, the personnel in
charge of monitoring progress along with the procedures were different for each
school. First of all, at each school site specific individuals from the RTI team were
in charge of monitoring at-risk progress. Several RTI team members at Walnut
explained that the psychologist, his team of college intern psychologists, and two
paraeducators monitored the at-risk students’ progress by administering an
AIMSweb progress monitoring test every two weeks. One Walnut teacher stated,
“Two paraeducators, and two students from [a local university] did the testing.”
At Laurel, several RTI team members indicated that student progress was
monitored by the general education RTI coordinator and the RSP teacher assisted
with progress monitoring. The general education RTI coordinator remarked, “Every
three weeks I’ll start to progress monitor kids. . . . I’m in charge of assessing them.”
During the 2006-2007 school year, the general education RTI coordinator and a part-
time RSP teacher, assessed the at-risk students’ progress. This year, only the general
education RTI coordinator was monitored at-risk progress at Laurel since the district
relocated the part-time RSP teacher to another school in the district.
Progress monitoring procedures and steps. After at-risk students were
identified through each school’s universal screening assessments, those at-risk
students’ progress was monitored. At Walnut, the at-risk students were placed into a
flexible grouping based on their universal screening. Then, there was a two-week
observation period of the at-risk students to determine if they had an appropriate
flexible grouping placement. One RTI team member explained, “The two week
107
period where the teachers are supposed to wait was implemented at the
administrative level to make sure that [the teachers are] not jumping too soon into
moving the child.” Another Walnut RTI team member stated,
So, they have at least two weeks that the teacher needs to observe the
particular students, and at that point we [the RTI team] can determine
whether [the at-risk students are] ready to respond to more information or
need to stay the same, or they need to step back a little bit and be retaught.
After the at-risk students were observed in the flexible group for two weeks,
then “the kids who are struggling, we do progress monitoring with [them] and . . .
every two weeks they’re test[ed] again, so we can see that they’re making progress”
explained the Walnut principal.
After administering the universal screening assessment at Laurel, the at-risk
students were monitored every three weeks. A teacher stated,
So they are basically pulling them every three weeks just to test them [for
progress monitoring and] we get those printouts [which] are really helpful too
because . . . you can kind of see the week-to-week progress that your little
ones are making.
The general education RTI coordinator described the monitoring procedure as:
I will test the students using the AIMSweb instruments, input the scores the
week after that, and then we analyze the data from there and take a look and
see if we need to provide interventions or just continue to monitor them.
So, at Laurel the general education RTI coordinator assessed all at-risk students
using AIMSweb every three weeks on Fridays.
108
Along with AIMSweb progress monitoring, the Walnut principal commented
that the classroom teachers also monitored their students’ progress by “. . . doing
quizzes to check their kids as they’re going along to see [what] they need to reteach .
. .” Another Walnut teacher explained that she monitored her students’ progress by,
“[doing] a quick quiz with the students, anywhere from three to six problems
focusing on the main things that [the lesson] was about.” At-risk student progress
was monitored primarily using AIMSweb, but Walnut teachers also used classroom
assessments to monitor student progress.
Furthermore, about half of the RTI team members at both Laurel and Walnut
indicated that monitoring student progress significantly impacted RTI
implementation. The Laurel principal asserted,
We don’t have any students that are flatlining [or] are not progressing. It’s
made us more aware. I guess that’s a success too. So, we have a really,
really heightened awareness of exactly where the kids are at any one time.
And, we spend time every couple of weeks sitting down and talking about all
of the kids, seeing how they are doing.
The RTI team members indicated that the results obtained the progress monitoring
enabled them to target their instruction in order to meet students’ needs. In essence,
both sites used AIMSweb to monitor progress although the individuals who were
responsible for monitoring progress at each school site were different.
Changing Instruction for At-risk Students
As part of the RTI model, Laurel and Walnut changed their instruction to
meet the needs of their students in order to enhance their at-risk students’
achievement. To meet needs, each site implemented research-based curricula only.
109
For tier I intervention, the schools used their core curriculum, Houghton Mifflin for
Laurel and Open Court for Walnut, and they used corrective reading programs, such
as Horizons and SRA, for tier II intervention. One RTI team member at Walnut
commented, “[The curriculum] is research-based, it’s SRA. There’s a program
corrective reading. There’s Open Court, that’s our core language arts.” A Laurel
RTI team member stated that the curriculum they used was, “the reading program
[and] direct instruction, Horizons, which was the corrective reading [program].” So,
both schools used their core language arts program along with a supplemental
corrective reading program as their research-based curricula. Along with using only
research-based curricula, the RTI team members indicated that they also changed
their instruction through the use of tier I, tier II and tier III intervention, data
assessment, and communication along with collaboration at Walnut.
Tier I intervention. Ten of the thirteen RTI team members at Laurel and
Walnut commented that they changed instruction to meet the needs of at-risk
students through tier I intervention. As described in an earlier section of this sub-
question, tier I intervention at Laurel was taught using differentiated instruction in
the classroom. A Laurel RTI team member declared, “The teachers will support
through modifications and accommodations in the classroom. There is greater
differentiation going on, but not to the degree where I would really call it leveling.”
With the implementation of RTI, the Laurel classroom teachers differentiated
instruction for their students, but not through leveled, flexible groups like Walnut.
110
At Walnut, instruction changed with the implementation of upper grade
flexible grouping and primary between the bells tier I intervention. An RTI team
member stated, “They did level teaching [in sixth grade], so we started leveled
groups for language arts [in third through sixth grade].” The teachers changed
instruction through flexible grouping which provided at-risk students with “a
completely different curriculum,” commented a teacher. Another teacher remarked,
[The teachers] feel they can do more because they feel that the kids they are
with are very similar and they can move them along. It’s easier for the
teacher also because you have the same level of students in your classroom.
In addition, primary teachers have changed their instruction through between the
bells intervention. One RTI team member declared,
. . . teachers identify students that have needs for whatever they’re teaching
that week, and they’re going to pull those students in to work with them one
on one [while at the same time] the para is going to go out there and take [the
rest of the] group of students [in that class and teach them].
When discussing the importance of between the bells intervention, one RTI
team member at Walnut commented, “Release intervention and that is by far the
most successful component statistically . . .” It was successful because primary
teachers identified students in their class who were struggling and provided them
with small group pre-teaching instruction three times a week for forty minutes.
Thus, tier I intervention changed the way teachers instruct at-risk students at both
sites. Specifically, Walnut upper grade teachers used leveled, flexible grouping and
111
Walnut primary teachers used between the bells intervention. Laurel teachers
differentiated instruction within their classroom. Tier I intervention not only
changed instruction at both sites, but also enabled them to target at-risk needs.
Tier II and tier III intervention. The RSP teachers, the principals, and the
paraeducator explained that Tier II and tier III intervention also changed the
instruction that was provided to the at-risk students. At both sites, at-risk students
who are unsuccessful with tier I interventions were provided with tier II pullout
interventions. The tier II interventions were facilitated by the paraeducators at each
school site along with the RSP teacher at each site. One RSP teacher when
discussing how her tier II instruction changed, she asserted,
My teaching has changed completely since RTI. Now, I’m working with
much larger groups of children up to 14 or 16 at a time for a forty-five minute
period. I’m spending more of my time on teaching than I am on paperwork.
In other words, at a given time, between 14 and 16 students were divided up into
small groups to receive tier II or tier III intervention from either the RSP teacher or
from the paraeducators. After an at-risk student lacked success in the tier II
intervention, then he or she participated in tier III intervention. A RTI team member
stated, “Tier III is high individualized [with] additional individualized modifications
. . . we might introduce a second supplement or third supplement.”
112
Additionally, half of the RTI team members at both sites indicated that the
special education teams at each school site changed their program to accommodate
the RTI model. One RSP teacher declared, “All resource services are delivered
through RTI. We combined the reading lab with the RSP program [also].” At least
two RSP paraeducators at each school site were incorporated into the teaching
portion of the tier II pullout program.
In sum, Tier II and tier III pullout intervention has changed the way Laurel
and Walnut meet the academic needs of their at-risk students. In particular, at-risk
students were pulled out of the classroom to receive small group supplemental
intervention with a paraeducator or the RSP teacher. Yet, a couple of Laurel RTI
team members mentioned that they would like to restructure the tier II interventions
in order to enhance the success of RTI. The general education RTI coordinator
asserted, “I wish we had funding that was not pullout programs during school time.”
Laurel desires to provide their at-risk students with targeted and leveled intervention
in the classroom without having the students miss valuable classroom instruction.
Assessment and data collection. The use of assessment and data collection
through the RTI model targeted a change in instruction for at-risk students at Laurel
and Walnut. To effectively use tier I intervention to meet the needs of the at-risk
students, teachers at the two school sites administered assessments and analyzed data
to guide their instruction. A Walnut RTI team member stated, “By allowing the
teachers to self-identify tier I students using the curriculum-based measures and
113
classroom performance, then three times a week they [spend] 40 minutes pre-
teach[ing] upcoming lessons.” Another teacher at Walnut declared,
The upper grades [have] a lot more [student test] data that they can use, [and]
it really allowed our team to really kind of have a focus, not just on the
standards, but really on the results and make sure that we consciously [are]
looking and sharing with each other so we [are able to] better teach the
students.
With the use of data results, the teachers were able to change their instruction.
Moreover, the data assessment included the use of universal screening, benchmarks,
and AIMSweb progress monitoring assessments. A Laurel teacher commented,
“And I basically use [assessment data] to set up my reading groups. The ones that
are struggling, I group them together or I’ll pair them up with another student that’s
above average . . .” Therefore, the use of assessment data from the universal
screening, benchmarks, and AIMSweb enabled Laurel and Walnut teachers to
change their instruction and meet the needs of their at-risk students.
Communication and collaboration. A couple of Walnut RTI team members
commented that communication and collaboration that occurred through the use of
RTI changed their instruction for at-risk students. An RTI team member at Walnut
remarked,
If the kindergarten team got together and said such and such student is really
not getting addition, and the teachers would share, ‘hey did you try this
method or this strategy? Try it.’ And we get back together and we’re able to
say ‘Yeah it really worked, or do you have any suggestions? How can you
help me?’ So, I really think that the team collaborating together is really
helping gear us towards teaching and learning.
114
The principal also commented, “There’s a lot more sharing and communication
going on to help with the students who are struggling.” On the contrary, none of the
Laurel RTI team members indicated that communication and/or collaboration
significantly impacted their instruction. That was interesting since Walnut indicated
that the communication and collaboration has enabled them to spend time discussing
at-risk students which in return helped improve the academic achievement of those
students. Hence, the majority of the RTI team members indicated that the
implementation of the RTI model, including tier I, tier II and tier III intervention,
data assessment, and an increase in communication and collaboration at Walnut,
changed their instruction in order to more effective meet the needs of their at-risk
students.
Summary
Both Laurel and Walnut used the implementation of the RTI model to
improve academic achievement for their at-risk students. In particular, each school
improved at-risk achievement by meeting the needs of the at-risk students,
monitoring the progress of the at-risk students, and changing their instruction.
Walnut used flexible grouping and between the bells tier I intervention to meet the
needs of the at-risk students as well as to change their instruction. On the contrary,
the Laurel teachers met at-risk needs and changed their instruction by providing tier I
intervention differentiated instruction in their classroom. At each site, the at-risk
students’ progress was monitored using the collected data from the AIMSweb
assessments; Walnut monitored every two weeks while Laurel monitored every three
115
weeks. Assessment data was also used to change instruction by enabling the
teachers to meet individual needs. Thus, both schools have implemented a similar,
yet slightly “unique” version of RTI model to best target the needs of their respective
at-risk students.
Factors that Facilitated and/or Hindered the Implementation of RTI
All RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut indicated that multiple factors
impacted the implementation of the RTI model. Specifically, site leadership, district
support, teacher role, teacher buy-in, resources, and professional development
affected RTI implementation. At each site, the RTI team members commented that
some factors assisted them in their efforts while others posed challenges. Each of the
above factors will be addressed individually to illustrate how it either facilitated or
hindered the implementation of RTI at each site.
Site Leadership
The majority of the RTI team members at both sites indicated that site
leadership impacted RTI implementation. In particular, the principals and site
leadership teams provided information about RTI to the staff, set the tone for the
implementation, and assisted the staff with implementing the tiered instruction and
assessment components. At each site, the role of the principal and the site leadership
team affected the success of the RTI implementation.
116
The role of the principal. Nine of the thirteen RTI team members at both
sites indicated that the role of the principal impacted RTI implementation at Laurel
and Walnut. The principal’s role consisted of being first and foremost the leader and
“marketer” of RTI as well as being involved in the implementation process. So, one
of the necessary roles of the principal was to first get on board with the
implementation. A RTI team member declared, “There’s no point in attempting it if
the administrator isn’t open to it. No point at all.” The principal at Walnut remarked
that, “. . . if the leadership isn’t part of [implementation effort], it’s not going to
really go anywhere.” The Laurel and Walnut principals also facilitated the RTI
implementation by promoting it. A Walnut RTI team member stated, “The principal
is the most important, especially at the elementary school, and they really do have to
lead [for the implementation to be successful].” Another RTI team member
commented, “[Principal leadership] has a huge impact. He was the one who wanted
to see this implemented. He was the one who approached me to see if I was
interested in taking on this role.”
Along with promoting RTI, both principals were involved in the
implementation process. A Laurel RTI team member commented, “He involved in
it, and then he showed great leadership and he made adjustments and he guides us in
what we need to do. He looked at the whole picture to make this program successful
. . .” Likewise, the Walnut principal described her involvement as,
117
Just really promoting it. The whole time I’ve believed that this is the best
thing for kids and we’ve done a lot of talking, discussing, brainstorming, just
anything we can to make things better for our kids that are at-risk because we
don’t want them to fail.
At both sites, the principal was on board with RTI, promoted it to the staff, and was
involved in the implementation which enhanced their implementation efforts.
Also, the RTI team members explained that principal mandate may be
necessary to facilitate the implementation of a specific program. “If the teachers
don’t own it, they just kind of flounder until somebody [the administration] comes
by with a mandate,” remarked one RTI team member. A few of the RTI team
members, one from Laurel and two from Walnut, commented that the principal made
some mandates so as to facilitate RTI implementation. One RTI team member
asserted, “. . . where the paraprofessionals had been making photocopies, now the
principal has issued a mandate that the paraprofessionals have to be working in
student direct services.” At Laurel and Walnut, the principals mandated that all
paraeducators work directly with the students by providing tier II and III instruction.
At both Laurel and Walnut, the principal was onboard with the RTI implementation,
shared it with their staff, promoted the implementation, and involved himself or
herself in the implementation which positively impacted each school’s
implementation efforts.
118
The role of other site leadership. Most of the RTI team members at Laurel
and Walnut indicated that in addition to principal leadership broader site leadership
contributed to the successfulness of the RTI implementation. The site leadership
provided implementation information to the staff members as well as promoted the
implementation efforts. Several RTI team members indicated that site leadership
was a key factor. A Laurel RTI team member stated,
So, I think site leadership is very, very important to run this program
successfully because each school, every school, has it’s own culture and
system that the RTI program can be fixed and adjusted and set for the school
to meet their children’s needs.
The site leadership facilitated the RTI implementation to meet the needs of their
school cultures. At Walnut, the key site leadership personnel were the principal, the
psychologist, and the RSP teacher; they presented RTI to the staff. The Walnut
principal described the site leadership as,
We were fortunate that we had three parts. We kind of see ourselves as a
triangle, the school psychologist, the RSP teacher, and myself. And, we all
wanted to move forward with this. We thought this was the right thing to do
and each of us had our piece in it and each piece was integral. And if one of
the legs of it wasn’t there, then it probably wouldn’t be as successful as it is
today.
The majority of the Walnut RTI team members indicated that the individual role of
the psychologist as part of the site leadership also contributed to the successfulness
of their RTI implementation. One RTI teacher asserted, “. . . I think he played a big
role because he believed in it and he is the one I think who introduced it to the
principal and the RSP teacher.” The Walnut psychologist described his RTI role as,
119
I brought in graduate students to help with [monitoring student progress] and
coordinate[ing] [the assessments]. We have a little psych team here, I call it,
so I brought in all those people, which would be two practicum students, one
intern, and myself, and we coordinated the benchmarking and progress
monitoring. So, I guess you could say I did the assessment component and
data managing and analysis with AIMSweb.
None of the Laurel RTI team members discussed how the role of the psychologist
affected their implementation of the RTI model since the psychologist did not have a
significant role in the implementation process. In the future, Laurel is hoping to
involve the psychologist with RTI.
Walnut also developed a leadership team to assist the teachers with the RTI
implementation process. The leadership team consisted of
. . . the teachers, the psych, and we actually have some psych interns as well
as administrators. We also [had] one grade level representative [who would]
provide the rest of the team the information . . .,
commented one Walnut RTI team member. At the leadership team meetings, they
talked about RTI and learned how to administer the AIMSweb assessments so that
they could teach their grade level colleagues. Two leadership team members were
also the RTI data team collectors; they were in charge of the inputting all the
assessment data and developing the flexible groups.
At Laurel, most of the RTI team members communicated that the original
key leadership personnel that influenced the initial implementation of RTI were the
principal and the RSP teacher. After initially implementing RTI, the leadership team
expanded at Laurel. The principal asked one of the general education classroom
120
teachers to become a 20% general education RTI coordinator for the school. When
describing the dynamics of the site leadership, a Laurel teacher commented,
The RSP teacher is with us part time, and so she’s kind of the spear header.
And, then the general education RTI coordinator, who everybody just really
seems to like and respect, she speaks highly of it, and so she helps lead us in
that way.
An another addition to the Laurel site leadership team was a part time RSP teacher
who was assigned to work at the school for a few years. The role of the site
leadership team was to provide information on RTI along with promoting it. The
principal remarked,
So probably we were the core of it, a few of us, but we brought the staff
along, kind of worked with the staff and helped them understand what was
going on and why we were doing different things, and that sort of thing.
Along with providing information and supporting the implementation, the other
duties of the Laurel leadership team included “. . . just a lot of record keeping, a lot
of testing, and analyzing the data,” stated the general education RTI coordinator.
Although the RTI team indicated that the administration was very supportive
at both sites, a couple of Walnut RTI team members believed there were two
challenges that impacted administrative support. Firstly, one teacher shared that
sometimes there was a lack of communication about tiered interventions between the
principal and the grade levels. The teacher remarked,
121
It was almost like secrecy because we would see like a paraed outside with
students on the playground. We didn’t even know there was a kindergarten
through two between the bells special intervention that they got time to work
one-on-one with the students. So, if that would have been explained, we
would have said, ‘Okay, we understand that.’
Another RTI team member described the challenge as, “Well at this school, it’s been
communication among staff. There was some, let me put it this way, there was some
friction between the people who are running the RTI and some of the staff . . .” In
other words, there was a belief among a couple of Walnut RTI team members that
the administration was secretly planning primary interventions, the between the
bells, and not sharing the details about the intervention with the entire school staff;
this created a communication conflict between some teachers and the administration.
Secondly, the teacher on special assignment, who was performing the
assistant principal duties as part of her assignment for the school year, may have
been another administrative challenge. One RTI teacher member asserted, “We do
have a new assistant principal and I don’t know why she’s not getting more involved
in RTI . . . . I don’t understand.” That team member was upset that that teacher on
special assignment was fulfilling an administrative role at the school site, yet she had
no participatory role with RTI implementation except attending the site leadership
team meetings. At times, the Walnut administration support may have been lacking.
However, the majority of the RTI team member indicated that principal and site
leadership existed and helped enhance their implementation efforts.
122
District Support
According to RTI team members, the district provided limited support during
RTI implementation at the two school sites. Several categories of district support
emerged. In the area of general district support, the RTI team members indicated
that: they had no idea about district support, there was no support from the district,
or the district had little understanding of RTI. In the area of funding support, the
district provided initial funding support for AIMSweb, curriculum and instructional
materials, and the RSP and special education program. General district support and
district funding support are discussed in the following sections.
General support. RTI team members either indicated that they did not know
what support the district provided or they received no support from the district. A
small number of the RTI team members have no idea whether or not the district
supported the sites during RTI implementation. A Laurel teacher stated, “I have no
idea, but I think, I have no idea to be honest with you . . .” A teacher at Walnut
commented, “I have no idea. I don’t know. All I know is that we are really piloting
it. I don’t know what [the] district has [supported]. I have no idea.” In contrast, a
small minority of the RTI team members mentioned that the district did not support
the two schools as they implemented RTI. A teacher remarked, “I’m told that
they’re supporting us, but, you know, show me the money. It’s all about money to
me. Show me the money and that’s where [and] how you’re supporting us.”
Another RTI team member asserted,
123
They’ve played no role here largely because they don’t know what they’re
doing. The district has been really successful at defining what RTI is for the
rest of the district and mobilizing people to really want to go into it. And so,
you asked me specifically what impact have they had on our school. They’ve
had none.
A teacher described the district’s support for RTI implementation at the site as, “
‘Everything’s fine. We’re supporting you.’ And, then that’s all that we’ve seen.”
Thus, the RTI team members at both sites felt that they did not know whether or not
the district was supporting the school sites during implementation whereas others felt
that the district was not supporting the school sites.
Moreover, a couple of RTI team members explained that the district had little
understanding or background information in regards to implementing RTI at the
school site. One principal remarked,
I think the first couple years the understanding [at] that level was a little
limited, to be honest with you, and it’s partly, maybe because they are not
quite as close as we are with direct contact with the children. There is a lot of
misconception still within the district. We were involved in some training
with the principals, but I think the scope of what they are trying to understand
is within their means to do so, but they are having a hard time letting go of
something that they didn’t feel real comfortable with.
One RTI team member suggested that the district needs to develop a department to
manage RTI implementation for all the school sites in the district so that they
develop an understanding of RTI and provide resource support for the school sites.
According to some of the RTI team members, this past year the district
provided RTI training for the principals through a district committee. The committee
met about six times that year to discuss RTI. The Walnut principal indicated that the
district RTI committee consisted of “our district superintendent of curriculum, our
124
deputy superintendent, our director of schools . . . school psychologists, principals,
and even one of the special ed people from the district.” Although the district did not
provide professional training for the Laurel and Walnut during their initial
implementation, they are providing site administrators with some RTI information.
District Funding. Several RTI team members at both sites explained that the
district provided funding to the school sites for RTI implementation including
AIMSweb, curriculum materials, and the special education program. Initially the
district funded AIMSweb. One RTI team member stated, “I know that they have
funded the AIMSweb for us.” Although they funded AIMSweb the last couple of
years, they will not be paying for the schools sites in the district to use AIMSweb
next year due to reductions in the budget. If Laurel and Walnut want to continue
using AIMSweb next year, they will have to purchase it through school site funds.
Along with funding support for AIMSweb, the both principals explained that
the district also provided funding support for the RTI curriculum and instructional
materials that were used at the two sites. One of the principals asserted, “They have
supported us with material support [by] buying instructional materials for us.” What
was interesting about curriculum funding was that none of the RTI team members
except for the principals hinted that the district provided financial support for the
125
RTI curriculum and instructional materials. That seems strange since it was the
teachers and the paraeducators who used the curriculum to provide tiered
intervention on a daily basis. So one wonders whether or not the district provided
funding for curriculum initially, but maybe now they are no longer providing
curriculum funding.
Additionally, a small minority of the RTI team members indicated that during
RTI implementation the district funded the RSP and special education programs,
specifically the personnel. One of the RSP teachers stated, “The district has said that
they are going to continue to provide [RSP personnel] support at the level that they
would have.” Yet, now the district revaluated that decision. The principal at Walnut
remarked,
Originally the district said, ‘We won’t change the personnel at your site, so
whatever you have now is what you’re going to keep.’ So, even though
we’re not qualifying as many kids for SDC, or I shouldn’t even say SDC, but
RSP and SDC, our numbers have gone down, but up until this year, they had
kept our RSP staff the same. They did cut it this year . . .
In the past, the district funded special education personnel at the pre-RTI levels, and
now with the implementation of RTI fewer students are being identified for special
education, so the district cut the special education personnel. Overall, the past few
school years the district funded AIMSweb, curriculum and instructional materials,
and the RSP and special education program at each school site, yet as of this current
school year the district’s funding support decreased.
126
Needless to say, the district provided a very limited support of RTI
implementation at both school sites. The district support of RTI implementation at
the school level consisted of initial funding for AIMSweb, instructional materials,
and the RSP and special education program. Now, some of that funding is no longer
being dispersed. Hence, district support for RTI is lacking even though the district is
now mandating that every school in the district must implement at least one RTI
component by the 2008-2009 school year.
Teacher Role
As those changed with the implementation of RTI, the role of the teacher has
undoubtedly impacted the implementation at Laurel and Walnut. The role of the
teachers at both sites was to provide leveled or differentiated instruction to target at-
risk students. One of the RSP teachers commented,
None of the principals want their staff’s to become experts on RTI. That’s
[not the] goal. They want their staff to know that the program is available,
what the program does, how the children are put into the program [and] are
selected for the program . . .
so that the teachers can effectively instruct their at-risk students. Hence, Laurel and
Walnut teacher roles with RTI involved instructing the students using tier I
interventions, testing students, and collaborating with colleagues.
Teacher instruction through tier I intervention. With the implementation of
RTI, the teachers provided targeted tier I intervention to meet all students’ needs. At
Laurel, the classroom teachers instructed all students with tier I intervention,
differentiated instruction. Similarly, Walnut teachers instructed all students through
127
tier I intervention. In third through sixth grade, Walnut teachers instructed the
students through leveled, flexible grouping and primary teachers instructed at-risk
students through between the bells intervention. One RTI team member described
the teacher role as, “They run the flexible groups. And they implement the scripted
programs with real fidelity.” Another teacher remarked,
With our flexible grouping [in] language arts, we have basically five teachers.
We have a high, middle, I’m the middle teacher, then the other [two] teachers
[teach] the low group. . . .One takes the RSP students, the low of the low, and
then another one takes the low group and she breaks off a handful of students,
mainly English language learners, to work with them.
The principal described the primary teacher’s role with between the bells role as,
. . . the teacher would work with a small group of kids usually between three
and five of her students that she felt were struggling on a particular concept
and [she would] work with them. So that was two days a week and then the
teachers agreed to make it a third time, so they would see those kids three
times a week. They had agreed to take a half hour of their specials time and
work with the kids during that time.
With RTI, the role of the Laurel and Walnut teachers was to differentiate instruction
or level instruction to target individual students’ needs.
Teacher assessment testing. Half of the RTI team members at both sites
indicated that assessment testing was another RTI role for the classroom teachers.
The Laurel and Walnut teachers were responsible to administer benchmark
assessment each trimester. One Laurel RTI team member stated, “Their role is
basically to assess their students” to determine their reading skills. Another teacher
commented, “We have a book [and] we test them three times a year, fall, winter, and
spring.” At both sites, the teachers administered the AIMSweb benchmark
128
assessments and the writing prompts three times during the year; at Laurel, they also
administered the SRI three times a year whereas Walnut administered an Open Court
assessment three times a year. After administering the assessment, one principal
asserted, “. . . all of [the teachers] are inputting their data and so on.” After
administering the benchmark tests, teachers were responsible to input the data and
analyze it to assist them in targeting their instruction to meet their students’ needs.
Teacher collaboration with colleagues. Four of the thirteen RTI team
members indicated that collaboration was another teacher role that impacted RTI
implementation. In particular, with RTI the teachers spent more time collaborating
with colleagues about their student and their data. An RTI team member at Walnut
remarked, “The teachers are really talking to each other as a team and trying to
address the students as best as possible.” At Laurel, the teachers were provided with
time to talk about RTI at each staff meeting. However, three of the thirteen RTI
team members at both sites agreed that more site collaboration was needed to
enhance each site’s RTI implementation. At Laurel, some RTI team members
believed that staff collaboration needs to become an RTI goal. One Laurel teacher
stated,
I think the next step is going to be to meet as a grade level, and say, ‘okay,
what were your results? Here are my results.’ These are the eight kids that
are the bottom of 2
nd
grade as a whole. What can we do?
On the contrary, Walnut RTI team members explained that they were collaborating
more with site colleagues after implementing RTI, yet they would like to collaborate
with other educators outside of their school site. A Walnut RTI team member
129
remarked, “. . . collaborat[e] with other schools or districts that are using [RTI] and
see if what they’re implementing [may fit our needs].” In other words, an increase in
collaboration at Laurel and Walnut will enable the teachers to better instruct and
serve their students. The RTI teacher role included providing tier I intervention,
assessing students, and collaborating with colleagues.
Teacher Buy-in
Teacher buy-in is critical for RTI implementation as was stated in the prior
reform research (Appelbaum & Schwartzbeck, 2002; Datnow, 2000; Datnow, 2005;
Datnow et al., 2003). One critical factor that significantly impacted the
implementation of at Laurel and Walnut RTI was teacher buy-in. When the RTI
team member at Laurel and Walnut discussed teacher buy-in, several patterns were
illuminated. Each school experienced an initial stage of teacher resistance because
RTI was a paradigm shift for the teachers. After the initial resistance, teachers
bought into RTI since time and open mindedness were used to facilitate the buy-in at
both sites.
Developing initial teacher buy-in. More than half of the RTI team members
at both sites indicated that there was initial teacher resistance to the RTI
implementation since it was going to change their instructional and assessment
methods. The Laurel principal declared, “Initially they were a little leery about it.”
When the leadership team presented RTI implementation at Laurel, one teacher
remarked,
130
. . . don’t change my SSTs, I know them. I’m comfortable with them. I
know how to fill out the paperwork. And you are kind of not that you are
against it, but it’s one more thing, you are like, ‘Gosh, I just got that down,’
and now you have to do something else.
According to the RSP teacher, the Walnut teachers had the same feelings and initial
resistance as the Laurel teachers. She remarked, “Originally a little bit of teacher
hesitation, but by about four or five weeks into the year the teachers swore they’d
never go back.” The initial resistance to the RTI implementation was because the
teachers at both sites felt that they had to change how they instructed and assessed
their students.
With the implementation of RTI, the Laurel and Walnut teachers experienced
a paradigm shift since their instructional and assessment methods through the tiered
inventions changed their teaching and learning philosophies so as to meet individual
students’ needs. The principal at Walnut stated, “. . . the flexible grouping its, well
actually, all of it is a paradigm shift, the between the bells, everything and it’s really
changed how they do business.” When referring to the RTI implementation at
Laurel, the principal remarked, “But it’s a real paradigm shift, so you have to really,
really work on having people rethink what to do or how you do it.” Thus, the
teachers’ instructional and assessment roles changed because of RTI implementation,
and that caused some initial teacher resistance to buying into the implementation.
131
Factors affecting teacher buy-in. The RTI team members at the two sites
explained that the factors of time and open mindedness impacted teacher buy-in of
RTI implementation. First of all, three RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut
believed that time was an essential factor used to promote teacher buy-in. The
general education RTI coordinator at Laurel stated,
But we had to kind of go through that process and kind of let them see the
value of these tests. . . . It’s been an eye-opener and kind of education use as
far as what we should consider being at risk. But we needed to kind of let
them slowly go through that process last year.
In other words, “We just needed to have that time to allow them to see the benefits of
this program,” commented another RTI team member.
A small minority of the RTI team members at the two sites indicated that
having staff members who were open minded also facilitated the teacher buy-in. The
Laurel teachers were viewed as, “. . . very open minded and responsive . . .,” stated
an RTI team member. Since some of the teachers were more open minded to
changing their instruction and assessment methods in order to meet the needs of their
students, they bought into RTI implementation more quickly. This encouraged other
teachers to come on board and buy-in to the implementation after they observed the
impact it had on student achievement.
Both Laurel and Walnut experienced challenges with teacher buy-in. Three
of the thirteen RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut indicated that one challenge
was obtaining teacher buy-in. Communication and commitment were the two
teacher buy-in challenges that the sites experienced. A few Laurel and Walnut RTI
132
team members shared that communication issues impacted teacher buy-in and
created challenges for their RTI implementation. At Walnut, one communication
issue involved a disagreement between the principal and another RTI team member;
the disagreement related to the instruction and assessment roles within the RTI
model. One Walnut RTI team member stated, “. . . There was some conflict between
a very important RTI staff member and the principal.” The disagreement was not
resolved, so the one RTI team member left the school at the end of the year. A
second communication issue that surfaced at Walnut involved the communication
about the primary tier I intervention. One RTI team member asserted,
Yeah, just to know what’s going on [with the primary intervention]. So, oh
yeah, that makes sense, part of the whole buy-in because when you start
making it like it’s secrecy even though that may not be the intention, then it
becomes secrecy. It’s like, why can’t we know about that? What’s going
on? What are you trying to hide? Because that’s what it feels like, like
something is trying to be hidden.
Some teachers felt that the principal did not inform them about the intervention,
between the bells, that was occurring in primary classes. The primary teachers were
providing targeted tier I intervention to a small group of their at-risk students while a
paraeducator taught the rest of the students in another classroom. The concern with
the upper grade teachers was that the primary teachers received additional support
from a paraeducator during tier I intervention while the third through sixth grade
teachers provided flexible grouping to target at-risk students in their classrooms
many times without the assistance of a paraeducator.
133
Laurel also experienced some communication difficulties. One Laurel
teacher stated, “So, I think it’s just kind of the communication.” She implied that
getting RTI related information out to the Laurel staff was not utilized to its best
ability. Therefore, the lack of communication between the staff members was an
implementation challenge that affected the teacher buy-in for RTI at both sites.
Commitment was another challenge that impacted RTI implementation. At
Walnut, the principal bought special items for the teachers to use during
interventions in order to get them on board. The Walnut RSP teacher remarked,
. . . for a couple of years, we had to buy these little color-coordinated bags
with color-coordinated pee-chee folders with pencil bags and stuff. It’s the
silliest things ever, but that’s what it took for the teachers to feel like they
retained control,
Instead of buying items for the teachers, to establish teacher buy-in, the principal at
Laurel had to go around to teachers and convince them that RTI would meet their
students’ needs. Although there were teacher buy-in challenges of communication
and commitment, teacher buy-in was successful in the sense that all teachers are
providing tier I intervention and assessing their students.
On the contrary, a few of the seven RTI team members at Walnut indicated
that developing teacher buy-in and commitment to RTI enhanced the successfulness
of the implementation. One RTI team member declared,
I think the biggest success was a re-invigoration of a tired and overworked
staff. It has an incredibly, hard-working staff. . . . The children are happier
because the teachers are happier. The teachers are happier because they can
actually teach the children. Everybody, you know, whistles a lot more.
134
Walnut RTI team members believed that teacher buy-in of RTI was successful since
it was sparked and initiated by a teacher lead movement. One Walnut RTI team
member commented,
I think why [RTI] happened at this school is that the teachers wanted
something. They didn’t know that what they wanted was RTI, but there was
a group of teachers, a couple of them who wanted to teach kids at their proper
level in reading. So, it all started [with] grassroots from [the] teachers. It
really came from the teachers themselves. They felt they needed to really
individualize their reading program . . .
Since it was a teacher lead movement, “. . . the other teachers were promoting it,
[and] suddenly everybody wanted to be part of it, which made it easier to build upon
that,” stated another Walnut RTI team member. Furthermore, the Walnut principal
promoted the teacher lead buy-in by initially selecting specific grade levels to
provide the tiered intervention. She remarked,
We looked at the grade levels that were on board with it and sixth grade was
absolutely without a doubt ready to go with it. Third grade was a little
concerned, but they thought it would be beneficial to the kids. I picked, I
chose two grade levels that I thought would give their all. Once they started
talking about how well it was going, it just spread like wildfire . . . so I just
needed to get those two grade levels in and I mean they did the rest. It
created its own momentum.
To promote teacher buy-in at Laurel, the principal selected one of the classroom
teachers to become the general education coordinator as a 20% position. The
principal stated, “We have a certificated teacher, a credentialed teacher, that [serves]
one day a week [as the RTI coordinator and] that also, I think, helps with the buy-in
135
of the belief system.” The creation of that specific position at Laurel promoted
teacher buy-in of RTI because a link was developed between the teachers and the
administration. RTI team members at both sites indicated that a Walnut teacher lead
movement and the creation of the general education RTI coordinator at Laurel
promoted teacher buy-in which enhanced RTI implementation.
Although a few Walnut RTI team members believed that teacher buy-in
facilitated RTI implementation, two of the seven RTI team members at Walnut
communicated that there was still a lack of teacher ownership that continues to
impact RTI implementation. In particular, some RTI team members emphasized the
need for the teacher s to become in involved in RTI at Walnut. One RTI team
member remarked, “That’s a campus where very much the majority of the teachers
are waiting to be told what to do . . .” Another RTI team member stated, “At
Walnut, I think that because it’s such a massive program there needs to be, they need
to still work on teacher ownership.” Those RTI team members explained that the
RTI implementation will be more successful at Walnut when all the teachers on staff
are more involved in the assessment and data collection component. In particular,
the majority of the Walnut teachers administered the benchmark tests three times a
year, yet they did not participate in the progress monitoring assessments, nor were
they involved in the actual inputting of the student assessment data. A RTI teacher
member stated, “Everyone needs to share that responsibility.” Thus, to enhance RTI
implementation success, Walnut needs to build teacher involvement to facilitate
greater teacher buy-in and enhance the implementation results.
136
The Laurel and Walnut teachers experienced initial teacher buy-in resistance.
Once they bought in, teacher buy-in was facilitated through time and open
mindedness. The two challenges that existed included communication and
commitment. A teacher lead movement at Walnut and the general education RTI
coordinator position at Laurel promoted teacher buy-in. To increase teacher buy-in
at Walnut, teachers need to become more involved with RTI data assessment.
Resources
Another factor that affected RTI implementation success at Laurel and
Walnut was resources. The key resources utilized to support RTI implementation at
the school level consisted of personnel and technology materials. To obtain
personnel and technology materials, both time and funding were needed. About half
of the RTI team members also explained that funding was a significant factor that
impacted RTI implementation at the two school sites. One teacher commented, “It’s
all about time and money. Hitting the resources.” Funding of personnel and
technology materials was an important resource used to facilitate RTI
implementation at both sites, yet at the same time it was an implementation
challenge.
Personnel. To support the RTI implementation, personnel was required.
According to seven of the thirteen RTI team members, both sites retasked current
staff members and hired paraeducators. The current paraeducators also were
retasked so that they would work directly with students during either tier I (at
Walnut) or tier II and tier III interventions at both sites. A Walnut RTI team member
137
stated, “The principal hired some extra paraeducators.” At Walnut, the retasked
paraeducators taught the tier II and tier III pullout intervention and assisted some
classroom teachers with tier I. One teacher described the paraeducator role during
tier I as,
They are in the classroom with the teacher, so even though she has 16
students in her classroom, there’s a para with her where she can have 7 or 8
students and work on tier I with them and the paraeducator can have the
other, the rest who can work more independently, and teach them.
At Laurel, the paraeducators taught the tier II and tier III pullout intervention, but did
not assist with tier I intervention in the classrooms. Along with providing tier II or
III intervention, the general education RTI coordinator stated, “I have two
[paraeducators] here who help me correct all those tests . . .” So, the paraeducators
at Laurel not only assisted with intervention, but also assisted the general education
RTI coordinator with evaluating the AIMSweb progress monitoring assessments.
Along with retasking and hiring paraeducators to assist with RTI, each school
also retasked certificated staff members. At Laurel, the principal selected one
classroom teacher at the school site to serve as a 20% general education RTI
coordinator. The principal commented, “We hired a teacher one day a week who is
responsible for all the data collection, overseeing programs for the children, and then
working with our instructional specialist that helps to deliver the program to the
kids.” The general education coordinator also was responsible to communicate the
assessment procedures to the teachers and answer their questions. At Walnut,
instead of creating a general education RTI coordinator position, they retasked one
138
certificated staff member to help teach primary classes while classroom teachers
provided between the bells intervention. One RTI team member stated,
The additional staff we have for between the bells [is] a teacher that can take
a class throughout the day, different classes, kindergarten through second. . . .
[they] are given additional instruction by another teacher [in] science,
nutrition, or P.E.
Walnut also retasked the role and duties of the psychologist. When RTI was
initially implemented, the psychologist administered all the assessments. He also
coordinated the benchmark assessments and provided the school with a team of
psychologist interns who also assisted with administering the ongoing AIMSweb
progress monitoring assessment. “The psych interns, if we didn’t have them, I don’t
know how we would be able to keep up with all the testing,” declared one teacher.
At Laurel, a few of the RTI team members indicated that substitute release
time was another personnel resource that contributed to the successfulness of the RTI
implementation. The principal asserted,
We’ve actually provided substitute release time, release time for the teachers
to do those [benchmark assessments], and that’s part of taking the sting out of
it so that we make sure it’s done, and the teachers feel as though they have
the time to do it,
In other words, one teacher remarked, “We had a half-day sub. So, we had three
hours to sit outside [or] sit somewhere in the school and just pull our kids. I [got] all
my testing done except for one student.” The Laurel RTI team felt that one of the
best resources they received was the substitute release time for testing.
139
Eight of the thirteen RTI team members at both sites indicated that the
resources, especially funding and personnel, were also the biggest challenges they
faced when implementing RTI. The Walnut principal asserted,
I think . . . the financial part of it has been the most difficult, the most
challenging. We really had to get creative in order to get this program up and
running. I’m school wide Title I, so I do have more funds than others, but I
think its imperative that people look at what you have on campus and maybe
change what you’re doing a little. It may be a paraeducator that’s working in
a kindergarten class, well suddenly, that person may become a specialist for
the tier II interventions. You need to reevaluate and readjust and I think
that’s the important thing is you have to really be creative and just try to think
outside the box.
Likewise, the Laurel principal remarked,
We’ve got to look at the roles of all the people that are currently serving the
school and see if we are utilizing them in the best fashion now. . . . So we
keep looking at how do we pull in a speech therapist? How do we pull in our
psychologist? How do we pull in other things we do? And kind of make it a
part of the whole rather than independent.
Both principals explained that funding was a challenge, so they had to be creative in
finding ways to involve more personnel in RTI.
To sum up, in the area of personnel, both school sites reconfigured the duties
of their paraeducators and hired a certificated teacher to assist with RTI. At Walnut,
the certificated teacher provided instruction in science, nutrition, health, or physical
education while a classroom teacher taught between the bells intervention.
Additionally, the psychologist assisted with the assessment components and brought
a team of psychologist interns from a local university to assess at-risk student
140
progress. On the other hand, Laurel hired one of their own classroom teachers to
become a 20% general education RTI coordinator, and she was in charge of
overseeing the program and coordinating all the data and assessment components.
Personnel funding was a challenge, and for RTI to be more successful at each site,
the team indicated that more personnel are needed.
Technology Materials. RTI technology materials was another resource that
the majority of the RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut believed was necessary
for the RTI implementation to be successful. At both sites, the main technological
data assessment resource was, “the [AIMSweb] website, it’s all where we input the
scores,” stated one teacher. The general education RTI coordinator declared,
“AIMSweb is the huge resource that we use both for data input and for the tests that
they give that they provide us.” Both school sites indicated that AIMSweb was the
main technological resource used to support their RTI implementation; Laurel and
Walnut used AIMSweb benchmark and progress monitoring assessments to assess
and analyze student progress. Therefore, Laurel and Walnut used the funding
resources to hire and retask personnel and incorporate RTI technology materials in
order to enhance implementation.
141
Professional Development
Professional development was another resource that affected implementation
success. Laurel and Walnut engaged in professional development through trainings
that were provided during staff meetings and site leadership team meetings. At the
trainings, the teachers learned about RTI and how to use some of the RTI technology
and assessment components.
Staff meetings. As indicated by almost all of the RTI team members,
professional development relating to RTI was provided to the teaching staff at Laurel
and Walnut. RTI was initially presented to the teachers at both sites during a staff
meeting. At Laurel, after initially presenting RTI, future staff meeting time was used
to train teachers and update them on the implementation process. One RTI team
member stated,
We’ve actually did training during staff meetings. We did a video of the
instructional program with the children so the teachers could actually see
what it is that the children do when they go to the [tier II] classes. And then,
for a full year, even now, at every other staff meeting there is always an
agenda item to talk about RTI.
Training opportunities and RTI updates were provided at staff meetings.
An initial RTI presentation was shared with the staff at Walnut too. One RTI
teacher commented, “The psychologist presented it to the staff two years ago for two
hours, and then he worked individually with the RSP teacher. I know that he went to
a lot of staff meetings [and] we had presentations from them.” Besides providing the
teachers with RTI information, the Walnut paraeducators were trained to use the RTI
142
curriculum. One teacher declared, “The paraeducators were trained [to use]
Horizons [for] tier I and tier II.” The paraeducator described her training as, “I was
given videos to watch and some cassettes to listen to. And then of course, the
teachers manual and presentation books so I could kind of follow along.” Both
teachers and paraeducators were provided with RTI information.
More than half of the RTI team members indicated that both school staff
participated in RTI assessment and technology trainings. Each staff was trained on
how to use AIMSweb, and Laurel was trained on how to administer the trimester
AIMSweb benchmark assessments. The Laurel principal asserted, “We’ve trained
every single staff member in using AIMSweb. They help input data for us, and then
they can access data at anytime on their student to see how they are doing currently.”
Laurel trained their teachers through staff meetings or during substitute release time
while Walnut trained their teachers through during school training sessions. One
Walnut RTI team member stated, “There was a workshop on AIMSweb, an overview
of that, and then a workshop on data entry and how to read the AIMSweb graphs and
charts.” The purpose in providing AIMSweb training for the teachers was for them
to become familiar with the assessments components.
Along with AIMSweb training, the Laurel teachers were also trained to
administer the AIMSweb benchmark assessments. The general education RTI
coordinator described the training procedures as,
143
We had pulled grade levels at the beginning of last school year to go over the
assessments. We gave them time to see the assessments and showed them as
they were being administered. We provided a release time for us to again
individually demonstrate with the students in the classrooms and then to
monitor them as they assessed their students to make sure that they were
following the protocol for the assessments. We provided release time to
show them how we input the scores . . .
Through the trainings, the Laurel teachers learned how to appropriately administer
the AIMSweb assessment component. When describing the AIMSweb benchmark
training, one teacher stated,
We had a half day sub. . . . they had students come in and we practiced giving
them the test. So, one student was pulled. One student would sit there, and
five teachers are marking on papers. So, we had a couple of practice days for
that. They would explain it to us, and then we got to practice with several
students. . . . One RSP teacher would sit with us while we tested five or six of
our own students to make sure we were doing it correctly, to make sure that
we got a handle on it. . . . And she would kind of be marking her paper, and
we would compare real quick to make sure that we were all doing it correctly.
Thus, both sites trained their teachers to use AIMSweb, yet Laurel provided further
training along with practice sessions so that their teachers learned how to effectively
administer the AIMSweb benchmark assessments. Although Laurel received more
training, there was no indication that they were more successful because of the
additional training.
Three of the seven Walnut RTI members mentioned that their staff
participated in other staff developments that were used in conjunction with RTI. The
other staff development consisted of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and
Dennis Parker. The principal stated, “The Professional Learning Communities, that
144
really helped because there have been a lot more discussions amongst teachers about
what they can do with their kids.” The goal of the PLCs and Dennis Parker trainings
was to enable the teachers to utilize the ideas from the trainings within the RTI
model. Specifically, data collaboration about students along with leveling
instruction to target at-risk needs was the main concept that learned from those
trainings. Hence, Walnut participated in the trainings to gain more knowledge to be
able to meet the needs of their students through the RTI model.
Site leadership team meetings. The site leadership team at the two sites
participated in professional development trainings as well. The leadership team
received additional training so that they could share information and train other staff
members on site. A Walnut teacher asserted, “We spent three days, the other data
collection teacher and I, we came in during the summer, three or four half days . . . to
learn the [data collection] system.” Another RTI team member remarked, “. . . [the]
grade level team leaders were given an additional twelve hours of instruction [related
to RTI].” The leadership team received extra training so that they would be able to
assist other staff members with RTI intervention and assessment.
Both sites provided professional development training in the areas of RTI
background information and AIMSweb assessment. Yet, a few RTI team members
indicated that they need more training. One commented,
145
. . . so if there’s more trainings, more opportunities for development,
professional development at the teacher level or the administrative level or
even for the psych’s to just learn so that we can implement the best way that
we can.
To enhance the success of the RTI model at both sites, Laurel and Walnut may need
to provide their teachers with additional RTI professional development and training.
Summary
The factors of site leadership, district support, teacher role, teacher buy-in,
resources, and professional development impacted the implementation of RTI at
Laurel and Walnut. The findings indicated that both schools were successful in
promoting site leadership, facilitating teacher buy-in, establishing the RTI teacher
role of providing tier I intervention and assessing student progress, retasking
personal, and providing AIMSweb training. In contrast, the major challenge both
sites experienced was limited district support. Each site also struggled with teacher
buy-in, especially communication and commitment, and having funding for
personnel; Walnut also struggled with site leadership communication and teacher
ownership. To have a more successful RTI implementation, Laurel and Walnut must
continue to facilitate more teacher buy-in and involvement, obtain more personnel,
engage in more professional development training, and facilitate improved
communication.
146
How Is each School Measuring the Implementation and Results of RTI?
Laurel and Walnut measured the results of their RTI implementation through
assessment. One RTI team member declared, “We basically look at the data of the
students on an ongoing basis . . .” In this section, the assessment methods and tools
and evaluation results are presented to determine how each school measured their
RTI implementation results.
Assessment Methods
The majority of the RTI team members at both sites indicated that four
assessment methods and tools were utilized to measure implementation results at
Laurel and Walnut. They were: universal screening assessments, AIMSweb
benchmarking testing, AIMSweb progress monitoring, and CST scores.
Universal screening assessments. Four of the six Laurel RTI team members
and five of the seven Walnut RTI team members indicated that the schools used a
universal screening assessment to assess student achievement. At Walnut, the
principal commented,
We do a universal screening and actually this year we increased it
kindergarten through sixth, so every single child in the school has been tested
with an oral reading fluency and our third through sixth grade also [take] the
maze and it’s a comprehension test.
The Walnut universal screening consisted of Open Court assessments, CST scores,
the district writing prompt, and CELDT scores for EL students. Once the screening
assessments were administered and scored, the two RTI data team leaders created an
excel spreadsheet with all the data. According to one of the data team members,
147
“We take a percentage from each [screening assessment] and we end up with a total
of points.” After determining the points for each student, the assessment results were
analyzed and students were leveled into flexible groups and monitored.
At Laurel, originally the universal assessment was administered to specific
grade levels, but now all kindergarten through sixth grade students are screened. The
Laurel universal screening was based on “. . . SRI, CST, AIMSweb, and district
writing prompt,” stated one RTI team member. Initially, Laurel students were
identified as at-risk if they scored at the 20
th
percentile or lower on the screening
assessments; then the identification for an at-risk student was expanded to include all
students scoring at 50
th
percentile or below on the universal screening. This change
was initiated since the school was a high achieving school in which students who
were scoring at the 50
th
percentile felt unsuccessful compared to their peers. After
students were identified as at-risk, they were progress monitored and teachers
provided differentiated instruction in the classroom.
AIMSweb benchmark testing. The RTI team members communicated that
their schools utilized the AIMSweb assessments for benchmarking and progress
monitoring. Benchmark testing was another ongoing assessment that was
administered to the students at both Laurel and Walnut. As per eleven of the thirteen
RTI team members at both sites, AIMSweb benchmark testing was used to evaluate
the results of RTI intervention. At each site, benchmark assessments were
administered three times a year during the fall, winter, and spring trimesters.
148
At Laurel, the AIMSweb benchmark tests administered to the second grade
through sixth grade students were
the RCM [fluency test] and the R-Maze [comprehension test]. For first
grade, we have a series of what we call fluency test or four fluency tests that
measure letter recognition, letter sounds, phoneme segmentation, and then the
last test is what we call a nonsense word fluency test,
stated a Laurel teacher. The RCM was a lengthy oral reading fluency measure that
was administered one-on-one in class while the R-Maze was a three minute
comprehension measure. Along with AIMSweb tests, Laurel students took the
district writing prompt as a benchmark, and second through sixth grade students also
took SRI, a reading measure, in the computer lab. In kindergarten and first grade,
the students were given the AIMSweb fluency tests as their benchmarks. The
benchmark tests at Walnut included AIMSweb, Open Court, and the district writing
prompt which were all administered three times a year. One teacher remarked,
“[This] is the first year we had the whole school tested [on] AIMSweb.” Just like
Laurel, the AIMSweb assessments consisted of the three minute R-Maze
comprehension measure and the RCM fluency measures.
AIMSweb progress monitoring. Most RTI team members explained that
AIMSweb progress monitoring was another assessment that they used to monitor and
evaluate student progress. One RTI team member described the progress monitoring
as, “I know that’s where the paraeducators do testing. . . . I know they have testing
149
and check the students to see if they are progressing . . .” The AIMSweb progress
monitoring was the same as the fluency and comprehension benchmark assessments.
Progress was monitored using AIMSweb assessments every two weeks at Walnut
since they had more at-risk students whereas it was monitored using AIMSweb
assessments every three weeks at Laurel.
The AIMSweb website was used to track and target student achievement.
The RSP teacher stated, “We try and keep stable markers, so we’ll use AIMSweb
[for benchmark tests and progress monitoring].” In addition, the district originally
purchased DIBELS
12
and AIMSweb as the two main RTI assessment components.
A Walnut RTI team member stated his belief that “AIMSweb is, in my opinion,
superior to DIBELS because the probes are better and you can do written language
and math on AIMSweb.” Both Laurel and Walnut used AIMSweb instead of
DIBELS because they viewed it as the more effective assessment component.
CST scores. Along with universal screening assessments, AIMSweb
benchmark and progress monitoring assessments, Laurel and Walnut also used CST
scores to track grade level progress and individual student progress each year. The
leadership team at Laurel, consisting of the general education RTI coordinator, the
principal, and the RSP, and the two data team teachers along with the principal at
Walnut analyzed CST scores at the beginning of each school year to determine if at-
12
DIBELS is known as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. It is used as an RTI
assessment component since it is a set of standardized measurements of early literacy skills that are
administrated individually to students to assess their fluency.
150
risk students were showing improvement. CST scores also were incorporated into
the universal screening assessments at both sites so as to provide an in-depth
academic picture of every student. Thus, the schools used universal screening,
AIMSweb benchmarks, AIMSweb progress monitoring, and CST scores as their RTI
assessment components.
A few RTI team members at both sites indicated that administering
assessments and inputting the assessment data was an implementation challenge.
Teachers voiced concern that they did not have enough time to administer the
trimester benchmark assessments to each student in their classroom. One RTI team
member stated, “Testing assessments [are a challenge] because we need to pull out
kids [during] my break.” The RTI data collection team members mentioned that
they were in charge of inputting every student’s assessment scores; it was a
challenge for them to input the data since they need more time and personnel. About
half of the RTI team members at both school sites indicated that they need to
continue refining their assessment and data collection procedures to enhance
implementation success. One principal acknowledged that the RTI assessment and
data collection process “. . . is an area where we’re constantly trying to improve.”
Evaluating Results
As noted, Laurel and Walnut evaluated the results of their RTI
implementation using multiple measures. The measures were: assessment and data
analysis, CST scores, and at-risk student progress.
151
Assessment along with data collection and analysis. The two school sites
evaluated the results of their RTI implementation by assessment. The students were
administered ongoing assessments, including trimester benchmarks for all students
and frequent progress monitoring for at-risk students, and then that student data was
analyzed. The Laurel principal remarked,
There is a core of us that sit down and kind of look over [the data]. We do it
at the end of the year [and] we actually do it throughout the year, but at the
end of the year, we’ll sit down and look at all the results of all the children.
We’ll measure how many kids are on target, how many kids are making
progress. We actually go through a process of determining which kids are
going to stay in the program, which kids will leave the program, which kids
may need a little more support. So, that’s our evaluation of it, how successful
they are.
In the classrooms, the teachers analyzed student data by examining the AIMSweb
data and comparing student progress over time. One teacher stated,
They always print out a big packet showing us, there is a graph showing how
there is kind of a line that says where they should be, and then there is
another line that says where your student is . . . [compared to where] they
need to be.
Similarly, Walnut measured their RTI results by analyzing student data. One
RTI team member remarked, “[You] can see the beginning of the year versus the end
of the year how much growth the students had.” In particular, Walnut analyzed the
student assessment data by observing the “individual results and trend results,” stated
another RTI team member.
152
CST scores. To evaluate the RTI results annually, both schools also
examined their CST improvement each year. After the first year of RTI
implementation at Walnut, they experienced “between a 9% and 15%” increase in
CST scores. A Walnut RTI team member asserted, this past year “we [had] a big
improvement. We had a fifty-point increase in the students. It was phenomenal.”
The Walnut principal stated, “We are seeing a lot of kids leaving the far below basic
[band].” At Laurel, the CST scores also improved, yet none of the RTI team
members shared their specific improvement percentages. Thus, based on an increase
in their CST scores, both schools felt that their RTI implementation was successful.
At-risk progress. Another RTI evaluation measurement at Laurel and Walnut
was the increased progress of their at-risk students. The Laurel principal asserted,
Almost every child in this program has grown. The rate of growth varies,
some kids are just growing like crazy and they are out, and I don’t keep them
anymore because they are way beyond what we would expect of them. And,
there are some kids that have had growth, but it’s been a little slower pace.
With RTI, Laurel met the needs of at-risk students since the number of SST
decreased. One RTI team member commented, “We were not doing a lot of SSTs. . .
. At our school we went from doing 70 a year to doing two or three, that’s huge.” To
continue to meet the needs of their at-risk students, a couple Laurel RTI team
members indicated that they need to incorporate math into their RTI model because
their at-risk student population who received intervention in language arts has
decreased from 53 students to 12 students. “So, we have to go to math here just to
justify our existence,” declared the RSP teacher.
153
At Walnut, the progress of their at-risk students also increased. The first year
after implementation “we took 16 non-reading third graders and by the end of the
year 14 of them were reading,” declared one RTI team member. In addition, another
RTI team member stated, “11 of the original 14 were able to go back into the general
education core curriculum and were no longer identified by their teachers as needing
intervention.” The Walnut staff observed that the at-risk students improved their
reading skills and basic comprehension. Hence, an increase of at-risk progress was
another factor that both schools used to measure the success of their RTI
implementation.
When evaluating the RTI implementation results at Laurel and Walnut, the
RTI team members identified three essential aspects that will confirm that their RTI
implementation is successful. In other words, the RTI team members will know RTI
is successful at their school site with improved data results and classroom
instruction/intervention, a reduced population of special education and at-risk
students, and improved student social behaviors.
Several RTI team members indicated that the implementation will be
successful at their site when their student data results have continually improved
over time. This included increasing the students’ CST scores and the school’s API.
At Walnut, improved data results means, “And of course my school will be at 800 on
the API,” remarked the principal. The principal at Laurel stated, “I’m being patient
with [CST scores]. I think they are coming, but we want to improve because that’s
kind of the measuring stick that everyone is using.” In addition, improved classroom
154
intervention will verify the implementation was successful. The general education
RTI coordinator at Laurel stated,
I think when we are ready to identify kids, when we find ways of providing
instruction for kids within the classroom and not having to rely so much on
pullouts. When we find interventions that aren’t necessarily done during
school time, or take away classroom time from the kids, or those pullouts that
are required if we need to provide a pullout intervention for the students that
that are making significant progress by the years end, and they are reaching
that goal. I think that would show success that this has really been
worthwhile.
The RTI team members believed that when students, especially at-risk, are provided
with core instruction and intervention in the classroom, they receive the necessary
skills to enhance their academic achievement which is a goal of RTI.
Secondly, a reduction of special education students and at-risk students was
also identified as an indicator that RTI implementation is successful. Both sites
desire to reduce their population of at-risk students. The principal at Walnut
commented, “I’m hoping to see less and less kids that are at-risk or below grade
level and that’s really our goal because once our kids are out of that then we know
we’ve been successful.” Since RTI was implemented at both sites, fewer students
were identified as needing special education. Along with reducing the number of at-
risk students, both sites also desire to reduce the number of students in their special
education program because of over-identification. The RSP teacher remarked, “And
155
then the number of students that are given support before needing special education
services. So, the number of kids we can keep out.” The RTI team member believed
that by providing proper intervention that meets each individual student’s needs,
fewer students will be identified to receive special education services.
Lastly, a small minority of the RTI team at both sites members believed that
RTI implementation will be successful when student social behaviors have
improved. One RTI team member asserted, “. . . the effect is very important because
the kids perceive themselves as doing better, actually that’s more important than all
the rest of them.” When students exhibit self-confidence and socialization skills,
RTI implementation will be viewed as successful at Laurel and Walnut.
Summary
To measure RTI implementation at Laurel and Walnut, they administered
assessments and evaluated the results. Universal screening, AIMSweb benchmark
testing, AIMSweb progress monitoring, and CST scores were the four assessment
methods utilized at both schools. The results at each site were evaluated based on
the data assessment analysis, CST scores, and at-risk student progress. Moreover,
the RTI teams at Laurel and Walnut communicated that long term improved data
results were an indicator for RTI implementation success. Specifically, at both sites
the team members indicated that RTI implementation will be successful when data
results continually improve, classroom intervention continually improves, the at-risk
and special education population declines, and student social behaviors improve.
156
Key Advice for Implementing RTI at Own Site
While meeting with all the RTI team members at both Laurel and Walnut,
they shared advice on how a site leader should begin to implement RTI at his or her
own school site. Their agreed upon advice emphasized five common essential
aspects while two additional aspects were stressed by a few individuals. The
common aspects needed to implement RTI were teacher buy-in, a big picture of RTI,
training, assessment and data collection, and interventions. The additional two
aspects that were shared by a few individuals were having an implementation
timeline and selecting a specific RTI model to meet the needs of one’s school.
First of all, half of the RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut indicated that
it is extremely critical to build teacher buy-in when implementing RTI at a school
site. The Walnut principal asserted,
I really think it’s important to spend the time up front speaking with the
teachers, looking at your school site, what’s best for your school site . . . and I
think to get the teachers involved right from the beginning because you’ll
have more buy-in and it will definitely be more successful.
Another RTI member remarked,
When you go into a school, identify the largest stressor for the staff and
figure out what component of RTI can give immediate relief to them and
work from there. . . . Sometimes identify the resistive members of the staff
and make them part of the solution. Be realistic about how much you can do.
Undersell it a little bit and then come in with big results so that the teachers
feel like they did it better than expected.
Along with teacher buy-in, school leaders must also promote teamwork and
157
collaboration among all staff members. One RTI team member stated, “Teamwork
is really important and everyone needs to do his part to make this program successful
because this is not the program that one or two people can run.” Thus, when initially
implementing RTI, it is essential for the site leader to establish teacher buy-in.
Secondly, several RTI team members at the two sites explained the
administrator needs to develop a big picture of knowledge and understanding in
order to effectively implement RTI. One RTI team member stated,
I think you need to make your own big picture in your mind. . . . So, first of
all I need to set this, this, and this, material-wise, technology-wise, training-
wise, assessment-wise. What do I need to do at first and question yourself,
‘Do I have enough knowledge about this? And I’m confident enough, and do
I really trust in this program.’ I think that’s really important to have your
own big picture.
Once a leader has developed his or her understanding and has a big picture in mind,
that individual must present his or her understanding to the staff so that the staff will
understand the purpose for the implementation which should enable a school to more
effectively implement RTI.
According to four of the thirteen RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut, to
effectively implement RTI, training the staff is necessary. An RTI team member
stated, “You really need people who are going to deliver your content whether it’s
your teachers or others need to be trained so that they are using their instructional
158
resources appropriately for the children.” When providing RTI training, a site leader
must not forget to provide assessment and technology training for the teachers. To
successfully implement RTI, leaders need to provide ongoing RTI professional
development.
When implementing RTI, developing the assessment and data collection
components are essential. Before implementing RTI, the site leader needs to decide
what the data collection procedures will be. One RTI team member remarked,
Find a way of collecting the data, find user friendly assessments and then
provide a lot of time for the teachers to get comfortable using whatever the
assessments are, model a lot for them, make the process, give them the time
to kind of evolve through this process and not push it right from the get-go.
Also, the site leader should select a team of staff members to assist with the data
collection and assessment component of RTI. Once the data and assessment
components have been developed, implementation should be more effective.
A couple of the RTI team members also explained that it is necessary to
establish the interventions prior to implementing RTI. A RTI team member stated,
. . . I would spend a year evaluating and planning for changes in tier I and I
would take it in another year just to look at tier I before I would do anything
else. That’s all general ed. . . . So, I would spend a year, like we did here,
planning and getting a very strong tier I in place . . . so you have to really
take a look at that program first and make sure that it’s really strong and
everybody is on board in doing that. Then everything else falls into place. I
think tier I is the single most important thing to focus on,
When establishing the initial stages of RTI implementation, a principal commented,
159
To begin with, don’t worry about all the stuff, all the data, all that kind of
stuff, the benchmarking. Worry about getting interventions in place. First
things first, get the interventions in place. Do be concerned about doing the
probes with your interventions that you are getting in place. And, make sure
that you are using the approved curriculum for those interventions.
Spending the time planning the interventions prior to implementing RTI will enable
a school site to have a more successful implementation.
A few individuals also indicated that having a timeline and selecting an
appropriate RTI model for one’s school were two additional factors a leader must
consider when implementing RTI. One RTI team member mentioned that having a
timeline is necessary. She remarked,
So, I think it’s important for you to have your own timeline. . . . And first of
all, to see this program, I need to have knowledge about this. And if I have
knowledge, I need to train the staff first. To train the staff, I need to prepare
this, this, and this area. After training, how can I organize, how can I guide
them successfully? So, you need to have [a] meeting at this point and I need
to give them this information at the meeting, all the details, so you make your
own outline and timeline and each outline and timeline needs to [list] specific
details to run this program smoothly.
Additionally, selecting the appropriate RTI model for the specific school site is
another important factor. One principal remarked,
You need to decide your model. Is this an in-class model where your
population is significant and you are going to level kids and you are going to
do specialized reading programs within the classroom structure which is not a
bad way to go, or is your population more defined with a little smaller
population of kids. Then, they need to be served in a different way. Decide,
do you need a school-wide modification of an instructional program like your
reading, language arts program, math program, or almost determining needs,
determining if the school I came from had 150, 175, 200 kids that are at-risk.
That’s different numbers, and that’s a more significant need to do strategies.
160
So, a leader must evaluate his or her school culture to determine which RTI model to
implement in order to meet the needs of the students at the school site. Hence,
developing and establishing a timeline and selecting an appropriate RTI model that
meets the school culture will enhance the success of the implementation process.
Culminating Summary of Research Findings
In this section, the key findings, based on the data analysis from the previous
sections, are presented. The significant findings for the overarching research
question and sub-research questions are discussed individually. The last section
presents the overall significance of the findings in this study.
Findings from Overarching Research Question
Research question one emphasized the process that the two schools, Laurel
and Walnut, proceeded through while implementing RTI. First of all, the reasons
why the sites implemented RTI were to meet the needs of at-risk students, comply
with the state’s guidelines, and accommodate the district’s push for RTI. The
schools each developed implementation goals. The goals for both sites were:
meeting the needs of all students, improving reading, supporting the extremely low
performing students, and facilitating RTI as a general education function; Laurel had
161
an additional goal of using common assessments. After developing the
implementation goals, the sites proceeded to implement RTI using multiple steps.
The implementation steps for both Laurel and Walnut involved planning and
communicating with staff members at staff meetings, developing tier I, tier II, and
tier III intervention, establishing data assessment with universal screening and
AIMSweb benchmarks, and facilitating RTI principal and site leadership.
Findings from Sub-research Question 1
Laurel and Walnut implemented RTI to improve at-risk achievement by
meeting the needs of at-risk students, monitoring the progress of at-risk students, and
changing their instruction. To meet the needs of at-risk students, both schools
identified at-risk students, developed tier I, tier II and tier III pullout intervention,
and used data assessment including universal screening and AIMSweb benchmark
and progress monitoring. At-risk students were also progress monitored; the
personnel who monitored the progress were the paraeducators at both sites, the
general education RTI coordinator at Laurel, and the psychologist along with his
team of interns at Walnut. The progress monitoring procedures involved
administering a universal screening assessment and administering the AIMSweb
ongoing assessments at both sites; Walnut also monitored student progress through
their leveled flexible grouping. Lastly, at each site instruction was changed to meet
the needs of the at-risk students through tier I (differentiated instruction at Laurel
whereas flexible grouping and between the bells at Walnut), tier II and tier III pullout
intervention, data assessment, and communication along with collaboration.
162
Findings from Sub-research Question 2
Multiple factors affected RTI implementation at the two school sites. In
particular, the major impact factors were site leadership, district support, teacher
role, teacher buy-in, resources, and professional development. Within site
leadership, the role of principal leadership and the role of site leadership emerged.
At both sites, the principal and the site leadership were on board, presented RTI
information, were involved in the implementation process, and promoted the
implementation efforts. In regards to district support, the findings suggested that it
was lacking. In particular, some RTI team members indicated that they had no idea
about district support, there was no support, or the district had little understanding of
RTI. The district initially provided funding support for AIMSweb and curriculum
and instructional materials, but current funding is now longer being disbursed at the
same rate.
The role of the teacher with RTI implementation included instruction through
tier I intervention, assessment testing, and collaboration with colleagues. In the area
of teacher buy-in, the themes that emerged were: initial resistance, a paradigm shift,
time, and open mindedness. Communication and commitment were two teacher
buy-in challenges, yet the RTI team members indicated that teacher buy-in was
promoted through the teacher lead movement at Walnut and the general education
163
RTI coordinator position at Laurel. In the area of resources, personnel, funding, and
technology materials were used to implement RTI at both school sites. The themes
that emerged from professional development training at Laurel and Walnut were
providing RTI training during staff meetings and at site leadership team meetings;
they also provided AIMSweb assessment and technology trainings.
The RTI team members at Laurel and Walnut also discussed their successes
and challenges with RTI implementation. At both sites, the success factors were
promoting site leadership, facilitating teacher buy-in, providing professional
development, and establishing the RTI role of the teacher by providing intervention,
monitoring student progress, and meeting the needs of at-risk students. On the
contrary, limited district support was the main implementation challenge at Laurel
and Walnut while other minor challenges at the sites included: teacher buy-in,
communication, and the resources of funding and personnel. To become more
successful, the RTI team members at both sites indicated that they need enhance
teacher buy-in and involvement, facilitate communication, increase personnel,
provide more professional development training, and continue to enhance the tiered
interventions and assessment components.
Findings from Sub-research Question 3
Laurel and Walnut measured the RTI implementation results by evaluating
their assessment results. Both sites established universal screening assessments,
AIMSweb benchmarking testing and progress monitoring, and CST scores to assess
student progress. Additionally, they both evaluated their RTI results by examining
164
their AIMSweb benchmark and progress monitoring data, their CST scores, and the
progress of their at-risk students. The Laurel and Walnut RTI team members shared
that they know their RTI implementation is successful when their data results
continually improve, classroom intervention continually improves, their population
of special education and at-risk students is reduced, and their student social
behaviors improve.
Overall Significance of the Findings
In this study, the overall data findings established that the specific factors of
principal leadership, teacher buy-in, resources, and professional development
positively impacted the implementation of RTI at Laurel and Walnut. In contrast,
district support was initially provided, but is now declining since the district is not
disbursing as much funding to the school sites for RTI. This lack of support from the
district may affect the long term sustainability of RTI implementation at Laurel and
Walnut. Additionally, RTI was implemented similarly at both sites with a few minor
differences. This finding was quite astonishing since (1) the two schools are diverse
in regards to their student populations and school cultures, (2) the description of the
RTI model based on NCLB and IDEIA is vague, and (3) prior policy implementation
research has shown that local variation exists when implementing a top-down reform
policy. However, the local context at Laurel and Walnut corresponded with the need
for RTI, so the implementation was not only alike, but has also been successful.
165
Conclusion
In this chapter, the analysis of the data findings for each sub-research
question and the overarching research question were presented. Many themes with
reference to RTI implementation at Laurel and Walnut were discussed. In Chapter
Five, an overview of the study, a summary of the findings, connections to prior
research, future research recommendations, and implications for policy and practice
will be discussed.
166
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS
Overview of the Problem
In this 21
st
century era of educational reform and accountability, there is
heightened emphasis on increasing accountability and expanding comprehensive
school reform. In particular, public schools are mandated to improve student
achievement and meet the needs of all students, especially their at-risk students. Past
federal policies and legislation, dating back to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, have advocated support for at-risk students. With
the current authorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), schools are required to close their
achievement gap by addressing and targeting student academic difficulties. In other
words, the goal of our current accountability reform movement is to enhance
achievement for all students. As discussed earlier, Response to Intervention (RTI) is
a new initiative stemming from past federal legislation and ongoing reform
movements that emphasizes promoting effective instruction to meet all students’
needs through a multi-tiered intervention model.
In this day and age when educational reforms are here today and gone
tomorrow, why implement yet another reform initiative like RTI? Unlike other
reforms, RTI may be here to stay since the significance of implementing RTI is that,
167
. . . [it] provides perhaps the strongest basis for differentiation of instruction,
since closely monitoring the progress of struggling students allows the
teacher and the student to jointly and specifically focus instruction on the
exact curricular skills that challenge the child (Bender, 2008, p. 140).
It is a multi-tiered intervention model that provides high quality research-based
instruction to all students along with targeting specific academic deficiencies of at-
risk students (Bender, 2008; Burns et al., 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hilton, 2007;
Mellard et al., 2004; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Although RTI corresponds with
today’s accountability standards, for RTI implementation to be successful it must be
sustained. Thus, the specific factors of teacher buy-in, site leadership, district
support, professional development, and resources need to be facilitated to enhance
and sustain RTI implementation.
Purpose of the Study
Even though RTI is a new initiative, it has sparked research interest. Most
prior research on RTI has focused on the relationship between the use of the RTI
model and student achievement scores while some research has compared the
commonalities and differences between the multiple RTI models existing in both
research and practice. To date, there has been a lack of research in the area of
studying RTI implementation in-depth.
The goal of this case study was to investigate RTI implementation.
Specifically, this study examined the successes and challenges of RTI
implementation at two elementary school sites in order to better understand their
purpose of implementing RTI to meet the needs of their at-risk students. My purpose
168
in conducting this study was to illuminate RTI implementation factors that
significantly impact, including facilitating and hindering, implementation at the
school site. The data gathered in this study was focused on answering the following
overarching research question: How have two different school sites implemented
RTI? The following sub-questions were also addressed to help answer the
overarching question:
1. How does RTI fit with the schools’ plans for improving the achievement
of at-risk students?
2. What factors (e.g. leadership, professional development, teachers support,
district support) have facilitated and/or hindered the implementation of
RTI?
3. How is each school measuring the implementation and results of RTI?
Hopefully, the research results will enable other school sites to facilitate a successful
implementation of a three-tiered RTI model.
Summary of the Research Findings
The findings in this case study indicated that Laurel and Walnut, two
elementary schools located within the same district, implemented RTI similarly, and
multiple factors influenced the success of their RTI implementations. Specifically,
both schools implemented the RTI model with analogous components consisting of
three-tiered intervention, assessment testing, and research-based curriculum which
are consistent with the research definition of the RTI model (Batsche et al., 2006;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hollenbeck, 2007; Mellard et al., 2004; Mellard & Johnson,
169
2008). The findings also indicated that principal leadership, teacher buy-in,
resources, and professional development are the factors that significantly enhanced
RTI implementation at the school sites. Although the RTI models were alike, there
were minor disparities between each individual school’s implementation, and I
believe that reflected the differences that existed between the student populations and
the school cultures. Since Walnut had a large number of at-risk students, they
developed leveled, flexible grouping in language arts and between the bells
intervention to target their at-risk students whereas Laurel differentiated instruction
in the classroom for their small minority of at-risk students. Additionally, Walnut
established a site RTI leadership team and they had the psychologist along with his
team of interns administer the AIMSweb progress monitoring assessments. In
contrast, Laurel hired one of their classroom teachers to serve as the general
education RTI coordinator one day a week; she was responsible for assessing and
monitoring the progress of at-risk students.
What is most fascinating about these study findings is that the RTI
implementation at the two school sites was so similar and consistent with the prior
policy on RTI. This was a bit surprising for a couple of reasons. First of all, NCLB
and IDEIA suggest that schools may use RTI as a “scientific research-based
intervention” to deliver effective instruction, however, their description of an RTI
model as a “scientific research-based intervention” is vague (Public Law 107-110,
2001; Public Law 108-446, 2004). Although the RTI description is vague, Laurel
and Walnut RTI models are alike. Moreover, prior research on policy and reform
170
implementation shows great local variation in implementing top-down policies. In
particular, top-down policy implementation is measured by the fidelity to the policy
design, so the focus is on the procedural aspects while the context is downplayed
(Datnow & Park, in press). Pressure from the top is the catalyst for change, yet the
execution of policy implementation is viewed as the barrier when the policy
implementation is not successful. At the local level, individuals influence the
execution of the policy and its implementation. However, RTI fit the local context at
both Laurel and Walnut in this study, so the implementations were similar and
successful.
Connections to Prior Research
The research findings in this case study will now be further linked with the
literature that was presented in Chapter Two. Specifically, the chapter examined
research on the implementation and effects of RTI, specific factors that enhance
implementation of educational reforms, and the measurement and evaluation of
reform success. The following section will present the linkages between those areas
of research and my study findings.
The Implementation and Effects of RTI
Batsche et al. (2006), Burns et al. (2005), Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), Fuchs et
al. (2003), Mellard et al. (2004) and Mellard and Johnson (2008) explained that RTI
is a multi-tiered intervention model that meets the needs of all students. To
implement an ideal RTI model, it should consist of ongoing progress monitoring,
tracking of student data, using research-based practices, having an effective general
171
education instruction, and providing specific interventions to target at-risk students
(Hollenbeck, 2007). The above research was consistent with the characteristics and
description of the RTI models that were implemented at Laurel and Walnut, the two
school sites in this study.
Standard protocol versus the problem solving approach. The literature
suggested that the RTI approach implemented at schools may vary between the
standard protocol approach versus the problem solving approach. The problem
solving is a three-tiered model (Fuchs et al., 2004; Tilly, 2003) that emphasizes team
collaboration and goal setting through the steps of problem identification, problem
analysis, plan implementation, and problem evaluation (Batsche et al., 2006; Fuchs
et al., 2003; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Shores & Bender, 2007a). In contrast, the
standard protocol approach is also a three-tiered model that emphasizes a fixed-
duration intensive intervention (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007a; Fuchs et al., 2004; Marston,
2005; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). For the standard protocol approach, students who
are not responsive in the general education classroom are provided with small group
instruction at the tier II or tier III whereas in the problem solving approach students
who are unresponsive to general education are provided with interventions designed
specifically for the individual student. Furthermore, Fuchs and Fuchs (2007a)
recommend that schools use a standard protocol approach when dealing with
academic difficulties, and use a problem solving approach to deal with behavioral
172
problems. The findings in this case study corresponded to standard protocol
approach and were not reflective of the problem solving approach. In particular,
both school sites implemented a three-tiered intervention model that provided at-risk
student, who were unsuccessful in tier I general education, with small group
intensive intervention for at least 45 minutes three times a week.
The use of RTI to identify reading problems. The RTI literature also focused
on the use of the RTI model to target reading problems (Case et al., 2003; Compton
et al., 2006; Denton et al., 2006; Fuchs et al., 2004; O’Connor et al., 2005b;
Torgesen et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2003; Vellutino et al., 2006). At-risk students
who are struggling with reading are provided with intensive tier II and/or tier III
intervention in reading (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; O’Connor, 2000; O’Connor et al.,
2005a; O’Connor et al., 2005b; Vellutino et al., 2006). Students who continue to be
unresponsive to the intensive tier II and tier III intervention may signal an indicator
of a reading disability, and those students may need to receive special education
services (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Case et al., 2003; O’Connor et al., 2005b;
Vaughn et al., 2003). The prior research indicated that early reading intervention
with the use of the RTI model may help prevent students from experience reading
problems, yet for at-risk students to experience significant gains in reading, they
must be provided with daily intensive small group tier II or tier III intervention for a
40 to 50 minute time period over an eight to 16 week intervention period (Denton et
al., 2006; Torgesen et al., 2001).
173
Again, the findings in this study are consistent with the research. For
instance, at Walnut, they had 16 non-reading third graders who received intensive
tier II and/or tier III reading intervention, and by the end of that school year 14 of
those original 16 students had become readers and were no longer receiving
intensive intervention. At Laurel, of the 53 students who have received intensive tier
II or tier III reading intervention since they implemented the RTI model during the
2005-2006 school year, all but 12 are no longer being pulled out of their general
education classroom to receive intensive tier II or tier III intervention. Furthermore,
three of those Laurel students who had received intensive small group tier II reading
intervention along with individual tier III reading intervention were unresponsive
after multiple months of intervention, so they were evaluated and then identified to
receive special education services.
The use of RTI with EL students. The literature on RTI also emphasized the
use of the RTI model to meet the needs of EL students (Healy et al., 2005; Linan-
Thompson et al., 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006a; Vaughn et al., 2006b; Vaughn et al.,
2006c; Vaughn et al., 2005). In particular, many EL students are misidentified for
special education because of language difficulties (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006;
Shores et al., 2007), so the RTI model may be used to provide intensive tiered
intervention for ELs who are struggling with reading and language arts instruction.
Yet, for EL students to enhance achievement, they must receive explicit, systematic,
and intensive tiered reading intervention (Linan-Thompson et al., 2006; Vaughn et
al., 2006a; Vaughn et al., 2006b; Vaughn et al., 2006c). In this study, Walnut had a
174
large population of EL students who were receiving intensive tiered intervention
whereas Laurel had a smaller population of EL students receiving intervention. At
both sites, struggling EL students were identified to receive intensive tier II reading
intervention based on their universal screening assessments, and those EL students
made significant gains in reading and language arts. In 2003, Walnut had a RSP
population of 53 students prior to implementing RTI; after implementing RTI for
three years, the RSP population had declined to 28 students in 2006. Thus, the
research and this study’s findings are similar.
Factors that impact RTI implementation. The RTI prior research indicates
that multiple factors impact RTI implementation. Specifically, professional
development is essential factor needed to facilitate a successful RTI implementation
(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Hilton, 2007; Hollenbeck, 2007;
Knotek, 2005; Marston, 2005; O’Connor et al., 2003; O’Connor et al., 2005a;
O’Connor et al., 2005b; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). Along with professional
development, district and site leadership is necessary to sustain RTI implementation
(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Hilton, 2007; LRP Publications,
2007; Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). Resources are a third factor that impacts RTI
implementation (Ardoin et al., 2005; Tilly, 2006). The findings in this study also
indicated that professional development, site leadership, and resources were factors
that significantly impacted the success of RTI implementation at Laurel and Walnut.
175
On the other hand, the research suggests that district leadership is vital, yet these
study findings suggested that Lake Unified School District provided original support
for RTI implementation at Laurel and Walnut, but now is no longer providing RTI
funding support for the school sites. One wonders whether or not the current lack of
support from the district will impact the long term efforts to sustain RTI
implementation at Laurel and Walnut.
Factors that Enhance the Implementation of Educational Reform
When implementing an educational reform, such as CSR, multiple factors
influence the successfulness of the reform as well as impact sustaining the efforts
long term. According to Datnow et al. (2005), Datnow & Castellano (2001),
Desimone (2000), Desimone (2002), Kirby et al. (2001), Smith et al., (1997), and
Teddlie & Reynolds (2000), the essential factors that enhance reform implementation
are: teacher buy-in, district and site leadership, school culture, professional
development, and resources. First of all, teacher buy-in provides momentum to
implement and sustain reform efforts (Appelbaum & Schwartzbeck, 2002) because
without teacher buy-in reform efforts decline and may even die out (Datnow, 2005;
Datnow et al., 2003). Teachers must be involved in the reform process to promote
teacher buy-in (Datnow, 2000). One reason why Laurel and Walnut had successful
RTI implementation was because the teachers bought into RTI. At both Laurel and
176
Walnut, the administrators presented RTI to the entire staff to get their input as well
established a leadership team at each site to involve the teachers in the RTI
implementation process. Although a few RTI team members explained that Walnut
experienced more teacher-buy issues, all the teachers were on board and were
continuing to fulfill their RTI instructional and assessment role.
District and site leadership enhances reform implementation (Datnow, 2005;
Datnow et al., 2005; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Desimone, 2000; Ross et al., 1997;
Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Vernez et al., 2006). Specifically, district and site
leaders must buy-in to the reform because they are the primary support leader of the
reform (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). To sustain the reform efforts, district and site
leadership needs to be stable; when leadership changes occur, reform implementation
tends to decline (Datnow, 2005). The prior research corresponds with the findings in
this study; site leadership was present and did significantly impact RTI
implementation at Laurel and Walnut. The majority of the RTI team members at
both sites indicated that both site principals supported the RTI implementation.
A third factor that influences the success of reform implementation is school
culture (Datnow et al., 2005; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Smith et al., 1997;
Sterbinsky et al., 2006). To cultivate a reform effort to match the school culture, one
must think about the design of the reform and allow time for implementation in order
177
for it to be successful (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000). The research is consistent with
the study findings. Walnut spent a year developing and planning their RTI
implementation so that it would meet the needs of their large population of at-risk
students while Laurel also took the time to plan their implementation to meet their
school’s needs.
Professional development also impacts the implementation of a reform. To
sustain reform efforts, staff members must participate in professional development
trainings (Datnow et al., 2005; Desimone, 2000; Slavin, 2004; Teddlie & Reynolds,
2000). Initial and ongoing professional development will enhance the reform
implementation (Hilton, 2007). In this study, the teachers at both school sites
received RTI professional development training to assist them with the instruction
and assessment components of RTI.
Lastly, resources support the success of reform implementation. According
to Datnow et al. (2005) and Desimone (2000), resources are critical to implementing
the reform successfully. In particular, funding is needed to support implementation,
yet if funds only are provided initially, then the reform efforts may not last (Datnow
et al., 2005). The findings in this study are consistent with the research. Laurel and
Walnut used funding in the areas of personnel, curriculum, and technology to
support RTI implementation. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see if Laurel and
Walnut are able to sustain RTI implementation since the district has cut back on the
amount of funding that they currently are providing to the school sites.
178
The Measurement and Evaluation of Reform Success
Measuring and evaluating reform results is necessary to determine the
success of the reform. The five stages of the evaluation process are planning the
evaluation, designing the evaluation, reporting the evaluation findings, and using the
finding results (Cicchinelli & Barley, 1999). In other words, a school collects data
on the reform, and then analyzes the data to measure and determine success. Along
with a formal evaluation process, reform progress also must be monitored (Ross,
2000; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Benchmarks can be used to monitor and assess
the success of the reform (Desimone, 2002; Ross, 2000; Schwartzbeck, 2002). Most
importantly, evaluation and measurement involves multiple assessments, is ongoing,
and needs to be shared with the stakeholders (Ross, 2000). In this study, both Laurel
and Walnut used multiple measures to evaluate their RTI implementation results as
was consistent with the research. In particular, each school evaluated their results by
collecting and analyzing their assessment data, including benchmarks, AIMSweb
progress monitoring, CST scores, and the achievement progress of their at-risk
students. Both sites also indicated that they know RTI implementation will be
successful at their schools when their data results and intervention/instruction have
continually improved and their special education population has declined.
To sum up, the current case study seemed to correspond with the prior
research on RTI, reform implementation, and reform evaluation. The one main
contradiction that existed between this study and the prior research was the district
support. Prior research suggested that district support is necessary to successful
179
implement RTI, yet in this study most RTI team members revealed that the district
initially provided only limited support, including funding for AIMSweb, curriculum,
and the special education program, to sites. However, the district is no longer
dispersing the same level of funding, but instead is taking away the AIMSweb
funding that they had provided to the school sites. If the prior research proves to be
accurate, the limited support and lack of funding from the district will impact the
long term success of RTI implementation at Laurel and Walnut.
Recommendations for Future Research
Given that RTI is a newer reform initiative, additional research on
implementation is desirable. The current study illuminated the successes and
challenges of RTI implementation at two elementary schools within one district.
Although this study presented an in-depth analysis of RTI implementation at those
two particular school sites, it also prompted further questions regarding
implementation.
First of all, both school sites have implemented RTI for a relatively short
time period, a few years, so more research should continue to be conducted on the
implementation at those two school sites for a longer time period to verify if their
RTI implementation is successful and sustainable long term. In addition, since both
schools are part of one district, their RTI models and their implementation processes
are very analogous. As a result, further research in the area of RTI implementation is
required to be conducted outside of the district to determine if other schools have
similar or different factors that have enhanced and/hindered their RTI
180
implementation. Lastly, this study examined the implementation of the RTI model
to meet the needs of at-risk students in reading and language arts which has been the
focus of RTI in prior research. Laurel is currently in the planning stages for
developing a RTI model to be used in math. Nevertheless, additional research needs
to be conducted on implementing an RTI model in other content area subjects such
as math, science, and social studies, especially since we have at-risk students who
are struggling and even failing those subject areas.
Implications for Policy and Practice
As a result of findings in this case study, some policy and practice
implications will be identified for school and district administrators to consider when
implementing RTI at a school site. They will be discussed in the following section.
• As the leader, develop an understanding of RTI. Once you have an
understanding of the RTI background, create a big picture of how RTI can
meet the needs of your students and your school culture.
• Select an appropriate RTI model that meets the needs of your students and
the culture of your school. Look at your student population and determine
the number of students who are at-risk. Is it a large population or a small
population? If you have a large population of at-risk students, select a model
that is structured as a school-wide intervention such as leveled, flexible
grouping. If you have a small population of at-risk students, select a model
that best serves and meets the needs of that small group of at-risk students.
181
• Spend time up front building teacher buy-in because it critical to the success
of RTI implementation. Teachers need to be informed and involved
throughout the implementation process. As stated in earlier in this chapter as
well as in Chapter Four, without teacher buy-in, RTI implementation will not
succeed.
• Provide professional development training for all teachers and staff members
who are delivering RTI intervention and/or assessment. Specifically, plan
ongoing staff development that actually trains teachers and paraeducators
how to use tiered instruction, assessment, and the technology needed to
support RTI.
• Set up the tiered interventions for Language Arts and reading. Take the time
to plan the interventions, especially the tier I intervention for all students.
After planning, begin implementing the tiered interventions using research-
based curriculum.
• Develop appropriate assessment and data collection procedures. Decide
which assessments, such as AIMSweb, you are going to use to assess
students’ progress; make sure that the assessments are user friendly for staff
members. Once you select the assessments, take the time to train your
teachers and paraeducators to use the assessments; provide them with time to
practice administering the assessments as you observe and give them
182
feedback. Also, determine who is responsible for collecting and analyzing all
student assessment data. For instance, you could hire a 20% general
education RTI coordinator to coordinate the data collection, or you could
select several teachers to serve on the data team who would become
responsible for collecting and analyzing the school’s data.
• Establish a timeline including a five year implementation plan. For instance,
the first year, spend the time presenting and collaborating about RTI with the
staff, plan and develop the RTI implementation that best suits your school’s
needs, and provide professional development training for the staff. The
second year begin implementing tier I intervention and administering the
assessments to monitor student progress. In year three, implement tier II and
tier III intervention and revise and/or add to the current assessment and data
collection methods, such as creating a universal screening assessment. The
fourth year continue to refine RTI implementation and prepare for special
education identification through RTI. In the fifth year, monitor, evaluate, and
revise your RTI implementation.
Conclusion
The results of this case study indicate that RTI implementation was similar at
Laurel and Walnut even though the dynamics of the student populations and school
cultures were diverse. The key components, tiered intervention, ongoing assessment,
and research-based practices, within the two RTI models are consistent with the
fidelity of an ideal RTI research model. Furthermore, RTI implementation was
183
successful at the two sites because they facilitated teacher buy-in, site leadership,
professional development, and resources. To sustain RTI implementation long term,
district and site administrators must heed the suggested implications of developing
an understanding of RTI, selecting an appropriate model, building teacher buy-in,
providing professional development, setting up interventions, developing
assessments and the data collection procedures, and establishing a timeline with a
five year implementation plan. Ultimately, with increased accountability in
education along with an emphasis on comprehensive school reform, RTI perhaps
may be the reform initiative needed to enhance instruction and close the achievement
gap.
184
REFERENCES
Lake Unified School District. (2005-2006). School accountability report card.
Retrieved May 1, 2007, from,
http://www.abcusd.k12.ca.us/ourpages/report_cards/elementary/.
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.
Appelbaum, D., & Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2002). Defining, measuring and supporting
success: Meeting the challenges of comprehensive school reform research
(CSR Connection). Washington D.C.: The National Clearinghouse for
Comprehensive School Reform.
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. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D.,
Reschly, D. J., Schrag, J., & Tilly, W. D. (2006). Response to intervention:
Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandra, VA: National
Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.
Bender, W. N. (2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning
disabilities: Best teaching practices for general education and special
educators (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (2007). Implementation of a standard treatment
protocol response to intervention. In Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (Eds.),
Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher (pp. 21-45).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
185
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73(2), 125-230.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention:
1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 8-12.
Brown-Chidsey, R. (Ed.). (2005). Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving
approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles
and strategies for effective practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Burns, E. (2007). The essential special education guide for the regular education
teacher. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of
responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and
research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
23, 381-394.
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Comparison of existing response-to-
intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The
California School Psychologist, 10, 9-20.
California Basic Educational Data System (October 2005). Enrollment in California
public schools, by racial/ethnic designation. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.
California Department of Education (2006). Accountability progress reporting.
Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/index.asp.
186
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-
instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis
of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review,
32(4), 557-582.
Cicchinelli, L. F., Barley, Z. (1999). Evaluating for success. Comprehensive school
reform: An evaluation guide for districts and schools. Washington D.C.:
McREL and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
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(2),
394-409.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cross, C. T. (2004). Political education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41(1), 121-153.
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. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(2), 219-249.
187
Datnow, A., Foster, L., Kemper, E., Lasky, S., Rutherford, C., Schmidt, M.,
Stringfield, S., Sutherland, S., & Thomas, J. (2005). Five key factors in
supporting comprehensive school reform. In Bascia, N., Cumming, A.,
Datnow, A, Leithwood, K., & Livingstone, E. (Eds.), International
Handbook of Educational Policy (pp. 10-20). Great Britain: Springer.
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (Forthcoming). Towards the co-construction of educational
policy: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In D. Plank, B.
Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), AERA Handbook on Education Policy
Research. Washington, DC: AERA.
Datnow, A., & Springfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform.
Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 51(1-2), 183-204.
Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An
evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading
difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447-466.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successful
implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.
Desimone, L. (2000). Making comprehensive school reform work (Urban Diversity
Series, No. 112). New York, New York: Institute for Urban and Minority
Education.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning
disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: The Guildford
Press.
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we know about responsiveness to
intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 22(2), 129-136.
188
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What,
why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by
responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216-227.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-
intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-
171.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007a). A model for implementing responsiveness to
intervention. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007b). The role of assessment in the three-tier approach
to reading instruction. In Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.),
Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 29-42).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Hansel, L. (2000). Unlocking the 9 components of CSRD. Washington D.C.: The
National Clearninghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
Healy, K., Vanderwood, M., & Edelston, D. (2005). Early literacy interventions for
English language learners: Support for an RTI model. The California School
Psychologist, 10, 55-63.
Hilton, A. (2007). Response to intervention: Changing how we do business.
Leadership, 36(4), 16-19.
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.
189
Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Naftel, S. (2001). Implementation in a longitudinal
sample of new American schools: Four years into scale-up (MR-1413).
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Knotek, S. E. (2005). Sustaining RTI through consultee-centered consultation. The
California School Psychologist, 10, 93-104.
Koppich, J. E. (2005). A tale of two approaches-the AFT, the NEA, and NCLB.
Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 137-155.
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), 390-398.
Lloyd-Jones, A. (2007). Response to intervention. ACSA Curriculum Instruction &
Accountability Newsletter, 4, 1.
Lose, M. K. (2007). A child’s response to intervention requires a responsive teacher
of reading. The Reading Teacher, 61(13), 276-279.
LRP Publications (2007). Data-driven decision-making in the schools. What’s
Working, 4(1), 4-5.
Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention:
Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(6), 539-544.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model
for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis
experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 187-200.
McChesney, J., & Hertling, E. (2000). The path to comprehensive school reform.
Educational Leadership, 57(7), 10-15.
190
McCook, J. E. (2006). The RTI guide: Developing and implementing a model in
your schools. Horsham, Pennsylvania: LRP Publications.
McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No child left behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation
rates and eligibility findings. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 181-193.
Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped:
Decision making in students’ educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Mellard, D. F., Bryd, S. E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J. M., & Boesche, L. (2004).
Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-to-
intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 243-256.
Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing
response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Connor, R. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and
first grade. Learning Disabilities Practice, 15(1), 43-54.
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., & Hearty, K. (2003, December). Tiers of intervention
in kindergarten through third grade. Paper presented at the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention
Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
191
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005a). Layers of reading
intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and
student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 440-455.
O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005b). Tiers of intervention in
kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6),
532-538.
Odden, A. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through
comprehensive school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433-438.
OSERS IDEA 1997. (2007). An overview of the bill to provide a broad
understanding. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/overview.html.
Palmaffy, T. (2001). The evolution of the federal role. In Finn, Rotherhan, &
Hokanson (Eds.). Rethinking Special Education for a New Century.
Washington D.C.: Thomas Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy
Institute.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pavri, S., & Richards, C. (2006, April). Response to intervention: The RTI model.
Power point presented at California State University, Long Beach, CA.
Prasse, D. P. (2006). Legal supports for problem-solving systems. Remedial and
Special Education, 27(1), 7-15.
Public Law 89-10. (1965). Elementary and secondary education act of 1965.
Public Law 94-142. (1975). Education for all handicapped children act of 1975.
192
Public Law 107-110. (2001). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved February
10, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
Public Law 108-446. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education improvement
act of 2004. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from
http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html.
Rosenberg, G. N. (1991). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Ross, S. M. (2000). How to evaluate comprehensive school reform models: Getting
better by design. Arlington, VA: New American Schools.
Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., & Lowther, D.
(1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs:
A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 8(1), 95-124.
Samuels, C. A. (2005). RTI method gets boost in special education. Education
Week, 25(13), 1, 19.
Samuels, C. A. (2006). Ed dept. backs research plans for RTI method. Education
Week. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/11/08/11rti.h26.html.
Samuels, C. A. (2008a). Embracing response to intervention: The heartland area
agency in Iowa is helping school districts adopt the framework as good
instructional practice. Education Week. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/23/20rti.h27.html.
Samuels, C. A. (2008b). Response to intervention sparks interest questions: Critics
say approach depends on too many complex factors. Education Week.
Retrieved January 23, 2008, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/01/23/20rtireact.h27.html.
193
Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2002). Patterns in implementing comprehensive school
reform: What the researchers say (research brief). Washington D.C.: The
National Clearninghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
Shores, C., & Bender, W. H. (2007a). Implementation of a problem-solving
response to intervention. In Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (Eds.), Response to
intervention: A practical guide for every teacher (pp. 47-66). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shores, C., & Bender, W. H. (2007b). Response to intervention. In Bender, W. N.,
& Shores, C. (Eds.), Response to intervention: A practical guide for every
teacher (pp. 1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shores, C., Morgan, V., & Bender, W. H. (2007). Implementing RTI to meet the
needs of all learners. In Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (Eds.), Response to
intervention: A practical guide for every teacher (pp. 67-89). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sindelar, P. T., Shearer, D. K., Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Liebert, T. W. (2006). The
sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 317-
331.
Slavin, R. E. (2004). Built to last: Long-term maintenance of success for all.
Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 61-66.
Smith, L. J., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D., Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. (1997).
Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, the least, early
implementation success. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1),
125-150.
Special Education Teachers Partnership Symposium. (2006, October). Willow
elementary school response to intervention five year plan. Paper presented at
the Special Education Teachers Partnership Symposium, Cerritos, CA.
194
Stecker, P. M. (2007). Tertiary interventions: Using progress monitoring with
intensive services. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 50-57.
Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S., & Redfield, D. (2006). Effects of comprehensive school
reform on student achievement and school change: A longitudinal multi-site
study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 367-397.
Supovitz, J. A., & May, H. (2004). A study of the links between implementation and
effectiveness of the America’s choice comprehensive school reform design.
Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 9(4), 389-419.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school
effectiveness research. London: Falmer.
Tilly, W. D. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for successful
prevention and early intervention? Heartland Area Education Agency’s
evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium,
Kansas City, MO.
Tilly, W. D. (2006). Response to intervention: An overview. What is it? Why do
it? Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2), 1, 4-5, 10.
Tilly, W. D. (2007a, February). RTI phases of implementation. Power point
presented at the Southwest SELPA and CALSTAT Regional Leadership
Institute, Carson, CA.
Tilly, W. D. (2007b, February). Response to intervention on the ground: diagnosing
the learning enabled. Power point presented at the Southwest SELPA and
CALSTAT Regional Leadership Institute, Carson, CA.
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 instructional
approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33-58, 78.
195
Turnbull, H. R. III (2005). Individuals with disabilities education act
reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and
Special Education, 26(6), 320-326.
United States Department of Education. (2001). Public law print of PL 107-110, the
no child left behind act. Retrieved August 27, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
United States Department of Education (2003). Fact sheet on the major provisions
of the conference report to H. R. 1, the no child left behind act: archived
information. Retrieved April 29, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html.
United States Department of Education. (2004). Comprehensive school reform
program. Retrieved April 29, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jimerson, S. R. (2005). Using response-to-intervention to
enhance outcomes for children. The California School Psychologist, 10, 21-
32.
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, December). How many tiers are needed for response to
intervention to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes? Paper presented at
the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-
Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
196
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D.,
Cardenas-Hagan, E., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J.
(2006a). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English Intervention
for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American
Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 449-487.
Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. (2007). Overview of the three-tier model of reading
intervention. In Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.), Evidence-
based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 3-42). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as
a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 69(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. (2006b).
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., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-
Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006c). 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., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching
English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting
research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 58-
67.
Vaughn, S., & Roberts, G. (2007). Secondary interventions in reading: Providing
additional instruction for students at risk. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
39(5), 40-46.
197
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to
intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and
without reading disabilities: evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-
grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 56-73.
Vernez, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating
comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Wedl, R. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative to traditional eligibility
criteria for students with disabilities. Minnesota: Education Evolving.
Witt, J. (2007). STEEP. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from
http:///www.joewitt/org/steep.htm.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3
rd
Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
198
APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Background
1. Tell me about your current position and how long you have worked at this
school.
2. What is your personal involvement with Response to Intervention (RTI)?
The implementation of RTI (research question 1)
1. How and when did the school first get involved with RTI? What were the
steps?
2. In your own words, what is the goal of RTI implementation at your
school?
3. Why has the school implemented the RTI model?
4. How close is your school’s implementation of RTI to the fidelity of the
model?
Plan to fit with improving achievement of at-risk students (research question 2)
1. How does the RTI model meet the needs of at-risk students?
2. How is the progress of at-risk students monitored in the RTI model?
3. Has RTI changed the way you work with at-risk students?
Factors contributing to implementation (research question 3)
1. What is the biggest success that you have discovered while implementing
RTI?
2. What is the biggest challenge that you have faced while implementing
RTI?
3. What professional development related to RTI is being presented to
teachers and other staff members? Do you provide teachers and other staff
members with RTI training? If so, please explain the types of training.
4. What role has the district played with RTI implementation at your school
site? Does the district provide support for RTI implementation? If so, please
explain what type of support they provide.
199
5. How has site leadership contributed or not contributed to the RTI
implementation?
6. What role have the teachers played with RTI implementation at your
school site? Do the teachers support the RTI model? Please explain.
7. What resources are used to support RTI?
8. What other factors have contributed to RTI implementation?
9. What could or should be done to make RTI more successful here?
Measuring implementation success (research question 4)
1. How do you evaluate the RTI implementation results?
2. What methods or tools do you use to evaluate the success of the RTI
model? Please explain.
3. How will you know whether the implementation is successful? Please
explain.
Closure
1. Reflecting on your experiences here, what advice can you give me as a
school leader about how I can implement RTI at my school site?
2. Is there anything else we have not talked about that you think I should
know? Is there anyone else I should speak to about RTI implementation
at this school?
200
APPENDIX B: TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Background
1. Tell me about your current position and how long you have worked at this
school site.
2. How are you involved with Response to Intervention (RTI)?
The implementation of RTI (research question 1)
1. How and when did the school first get involved with RTI? What were the
steps?
2. In your own words, what is the goal of RTI implementation at your
school?
3. Why has the school implemented the RTI model? Please explain.
4. How does the school’s implementation of RTI measure up to the fidelity
of the authentic model?
Plan to fit with improving achievement of at-risk students (research question 2)
1. How does the school’s RTI model meet the needs of at-risk students?
2. How is the progress of at-risk students monitored in the RTI model at this
school? Who monitors the progress of at-risk students? How is the
progress of at-risk students monitored in your classroom?
3. Has RTI changed the way you teach and/or instruct at-risk students in
your classroom?
Factors contributing to implementation (research question 3)
1. What is the biggest success that the school has discovered while
implementing RTI?
2. What is the biggest challenge that the school has faced while
implementing RTI?
3. What types of professional development related to RTI is being presented
to the staff members including yourself? Who provides the teachers and
other staff members with RTI training? Please explain.
201
4. What role has the district played with RTI implementation at your school
site? Does the district provide support for RTI implementation? If so, please
explain what type of support they provide. Does the district support site
leadership in regards to RTI implementation? If so, please explain. Does the
district support teachers with RTI implementation? If so, please explain.
5. How has site leadership contributed or not contributed to the RTI
implementation? Does site leadership provide support for RTI
implementation? If so, please explain what type of support they provide.
6. What role have the teachers played with RTI implementation at your
school site? Do
the teachers support the RTI model? Please explain.
7. What resources are used to support RTI?
8. What other factors have contributed to RTI implementation?
9. What do you think should be done to make RTI more successful here?
Measuring implementation success (research question 4)
1. How does the school evaluate the results of RTI implementation? In your
classroom, how do you evaluate RTI?
2. What methods or tools does the school use to evaluate the success of the
RTI model? Please explain.
3. How will the school know whether the implementation is successful?
Please explain.
Closure
1. Reflecting on your experiences here, what advice would you give me
about how my school can successfully implement RTI?
2. Is there anything else we have not talked about that you think I should
know? Is there anyone else you think that I should speak to about RTI
implementation at this school?
202
APPENDIX C: RTI MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Date:____________________________ School:___________________
Time:____________________________
RTI Meeting Observation List
Notes/Comments
During the meeting, I took running notes
and I made specific records of whether the
following items were discussed and/or
used (no specific student data was
recorded):
• Steps using RTI model
• Methods
• Tools
• RTI model meeting the needs of
at-risk students
• Implementation factors:
• Site leadership
• Teacher buy-in
• District support
• Professional development
• Resources (time, money,
personnel, etc)
• Additional factors
• Assessment & Evaluation
• Progress monitoring
• Benchmark testing
203
APPENDIX D: RTI DOCUMENT PROTOCOL
Analyzing Existing RTI Data Notes/Comments/Codes
I collected and analyzed RTI
implementation data. Whenever
possible, existing documents were
copied (no specific student data was used
or copied):
• RTI site created forms such as:
• Five year plan & yearly
timeline
• RTI level of tiers, flow
charts & intervention handouts
• RTI teacher informational
fliers
• RTI parent information
fliers & notes
• Assessment (Progress
monitoring reports, benchmark
testing charts, AIMSweb reports,
universal screening reports)
• RTI curriculum summary
handouts
• RTI power point
presentations
• State and accountability reports
• State accountability reports
(API, AYP, CST)
• Special education referral
statistics
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Today in education, there is heightened emphasis on increasing accountability to improve student achievement. With the current authorization of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, schools are required to close their achievement gap by targeting student academic difficulties. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a new initiative stemming from past federal legislation and ongoing reform movements that emphasizes using effective instruction to meet all students needs through a multi-tiered intervention model.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation
PDF
The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis
PDF
Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions
PDF
Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...
PDF
Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement
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
Teaching in the context of NCLB: a qualitative study of the impact on teachers' work, morale, and professional support
PDF
K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case 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
The effective implementation of reform strategies, instructional conditions, and best practices to improve student achievement in math: a case study of practices at Land High School
PDF
Factors contributing to transforming school culture: a case study of the advancement via individual determination program
PDF
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Teacher education programs and data driven decision making: are we preparing our preservice teachers to be data and assessment literate?
PDF
Culturally responsive coaching and professional development for teachers working with English learners: a case study in early childhood education
PDF
The comparison of hybrid intervention and traditional intervention in increasing student achievement in middle school mathematics
PDF
High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School
PDF
Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis
PDF
Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board
PDF
In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?
PDF
A case study: one successful elementary school that reduced the achievement gap
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kimmel, Michelle Kristin
(author)
Core Title
The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/28/2008
Defense Date
03/10/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
CSR,IDEIA,NCLB,OAI-PMH Harvest,reform implementation factors,response to Intervention,RTI
Place Name
California
(states),
educational facilities: Laurel Elementary School
(geographic subject),
educational facilities: Walnut Elementary School
(geographic subject),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Datnow, Amanda (
committee chair
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
), Rueda, Robert S. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mkimmel@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1061
Unique identifier
UC1207025
Identifier
etd-Kimmel-20080328 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-46254 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1061 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Kimmel-20080328.pdf
Dmrecord
46254
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kimmel, Michelle Kristin
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
Tags
CSR
IDEIA
NCLB
reform implementation factors
response to Intervention
RTI