Understanding Practitioner Perceptions of Responsiveness to Intervention

Abstract

This mixed methods study explored elementary and secondary educators’ perceptions of their school district’s responsiveness to intervention (RTI) initiative. Teachers and administrators were surveyed regarding (a) the perceived feasibility and effectiveness of educational practices that are inherent within RTI models, (b) perceived knowledge of basic RTI concepts, and (c) perceived preparedness to implement specific components of RTI within their district. A majority of respondents reported that educational practices common to RTI models (e.g., progress monitoring, evidence-based instruction) were both feasible for the classroom and effectively implemented at their school. In addition, most understood the basic principles of RTI. However, responses indicated that educators need more specific guidance about how to implement. Lack of understanding of RTI and need for guidance for implementation were particularly pronounced at the high school level. Findings from the current study are consistent with the existing RTI literature. We conclude with recommendations for professional development of RTI and implications for practice specifically at the secondary level.

Keywords

inclusion qualitative methods learning disabilities identification reform

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered system intended to provide screening and early intervention for students at risk for academic failure through the use of research-based educational practices and assessments. The reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) also accepted RTI as an alternative system for identification for students with learning disabilities (LD). The utility of RTI as an identification tool for students with LD has received much attention (e.g., D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Reynolds, & Shaywitz, 2009). In addition, research has heavily focused on the effects of RTI programs in preventing the development of academic difficulties, particularly with students in the early elementary years (e.g., Burns & Scholin, 2013; Greenwood, Kamps, Terry, & Linebarger, 2007).

Foundations of RTI

Core components of RTI include the following: universal screening, continuous progress monitoring, high-quality classroom instruction using research-based interventions, and fidelity of instructional interventions (RTI Action Network, n.d.). However, although RTI is a relatively new framework, these core components have been a part of recommended classroom practice in isolation for some time. Universal screening is the practice of systematically assessing students’ academic and/or behavioral performance to identify individuals who are at risk for learning and/or behavioral challenges (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). Generally, this occurs three times a year (i.e., early fall, mid-year, late spring) for measures specific to reading, writing, math, and/or behavioral proficiency (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). Conversely, progress monitoring involves the collection of academic and/or behavioral data on a more frequent basis (e.g., curriculum-based measurements [CBM]; Deno, 2003) to assist in determining whether students are making adequate progress on targeted skills (Berkeley & Riccomini, 2011). Teachers use this data to make timely instructional decisions and to determine students who may need more intense instructional support (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Although classroom teachers use numerous instructional strategies or interventions to teach curriculum objectives, the selection of research-based interventions specifically refers to strategies that have empirical evidence supporting the use of the intervention (F. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). These interventions may be vetted by researchers, academic organizations, and/or technical assistance centers (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, National Center on Intensive Intervention, etc.). Generally, research-based instructional practices are both explicit and systematic in nature (e.g., Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003).

What makes these practices unique in an RTI model are how they are utilized within a tiered framework. Although the number of tiers in an RTI model can vary, three tiers are most often selected (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). The first tier, or primary intervention, occurs in the general education setting consisting of high-quality, differentiated, core instruction (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Universal screening measures are used to identify students who are not meeting curriculum goals in the core classroom and need additional instructional interventions that are validated empirically (F. Fuchs et al., 2012). The second and third level of instruction varies in intensity (e.g., duration, frequency, time), size of student groupings, and skill level of the instructor (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007; Chard, 2012). Continuous progress monitoring of student performance is more frequently completed in the second and third tiers of instruction. If adequate performance is achieved, the child may exit to a preceding level of prevention. Likewise, if a child is unresponsive to research-based instruction, provisions for referring students for a comprehensive evaluation to determine a specific disability may be considered. In an RTI framework, all components (i.e., screening, progress monitoring, tiered interventions) should be implemented with a high degree of fidelity.

There are ample descriptions of RTI model types and processes within the literature (e.g., Hughes, & Dexter, 2011; Mellard, Stern, & Woods, 2011). However, in 2009, Berkeley and colleagues evaluated state policies on RTI across the country and found that states’ levels of development and implementation varied widely. Specific guidance regarding assessment, selection, and implementation of research-based practices at each tier, and fidelity of treatment, was generally unavailable. Furthermore, researchers found a serious lack of guidance for the secondary levels (i.e., middle and high school). Other analyses (e.g., Zirkel & Thomas, 2010) have noted a shift in RTI policies. Initially, states were pondering “whether” to use RTI and/or which model to adopt, but more recently, questions related to “how” to implement have come to the forefront. To illustrate, a recent survey of 46 special education directors in North Carolina (Werts, Lambert, & Carpenter, 2009) found little agreement on the procedural steps for RTI implementation. Challenges included confusion regarding roles and responsibilities of staff within the tiers, how to collect and analyze data to make decisions, and how to provide professional development.

Challenges to RTI Implementation

Implementing change is sometimes characterized as a “wicked problem” (Fixsen, Blase, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013). Scholars in the field (e.g., D. Fuchs & Deshler, 2007) have suggested that the “wickedness” of RTI lies in the details of procedural implementation. Often, school initiatives do not take into account the feelings and opinions of those who must implement change; however, a failure to do this can negatively affect implementation, especially when negative experiences of past initiatives are referenced (Sarason, 1996). In the case of an RTI initiative, this means that identifying perceptions of school-based educators is an important part of successful implementation. Some research is emerging in this area.

In a study of first year RTI implementation at an urban elementary school (Rinaldi, Averill, & Stuart, 2011), a focus group of educators revealed they were not monitoring student progress and that there was no time to collaborate. At the end of the first year of RTI implementation, when teachers were beginning to monitor student progress, teachers recognized that they needed to make instructional changes, but they did not know how to go about identifying effective research-based practices to employ with students and were also confused about how instruction was differentiated at the multi-tiered levels. In this study and others (e.g., Fisher & Frey, 2013; Greenfield, Rinaldi, Proctor, & Cardarelli, 2010), RTI adoption was frequently facilitated and monitored by university faculty as part of established university–school partnerships. Peer coaching and professional development from faculty researchers in quality core instruction and supplemental interventions were provided. For this reason, researchers have also begun to look at how implementation plays out when extensive supports such as school–university partnerships are not available.

To understand critical features and contextual influences related to RTI implementation within a K–5 school in North Carolina, a case study (White, Polly, & Audette, 2012) used interviews of 15 school-based leaders involved with implementation. North Carolina used the train-the-trainers model to provide extensive RTI professional development and support for schools. Although teachers reported a steep learning curve for the assessments and interventions, they perceived RTI with excitement and thought that using data to understand student challenges was an improvement. In addition, strong commitment from the principal and capacity of personnel in the school was perceived to be vital for RTI implementation. Challenges included a feeling of being overwhelmed with the amount of new information, inadequate training, and time needed for data collection and entry. In addition, the RTI framework created new responsibilities that were not evenly exchanged with previous responsibilities.

The Current Study

Research (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2009; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010) has documented that RTI is defined and implemented in a variety of ways across states, districts, and individual schools. In Virginia, the state Department of Education produced guidelines that describe the principles and practices needed to effectively implement RTI; however, districts were responsible for developing specific procedures. If school districts are to successfully implement change, then teacher perspectives need to be a part of the process (Sarason, 1996). Previous research on teacher perspectives and the contextual influences of RTI have predominately been case studies of individual schools with a greater representation at the elementary level (Rinaldi et al., 2011; Weston, Curran, Majsterek, & Prigge, 2010; White et al., 2012). In addition, research has typically involved researcher-driven implementation of RTI in which a university partnership is involved. Research on district-driven RTI is limited, and a greater emphasis on contextualizing the RTI implementation process is needed (Jenkins, Schiller, Blackorby, Thayer, & Tilly, 2013). The current study extends previous research by investigating perceptions of educators in one school district that was undergoing RTI implementation across all school levels and absent of any external support system.

Method

A sequential explanatory mixed methods design was used to help discern challenges to implementation of the district-wide RTI initiative (Greene, 2007). In this approach, quantitative results provide a general picture of the research problem, and qualitative results enable researchers to refine, extend, or explain the general picture (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In other words, this design allows for understanding of “the circumstances under which a practice is most likely to be successful” (Klingner & Boardman, 2011, p. 209). Data were collected in two phases: (a) a questionnaire of educators involved with RTI and (b) qualitative interviews of a sample of these educators to explain findings from the questionnaire and contextualize participant responses.

Selected District

A school district in the Northeast was purposefully selected due to its small size, its recent adoption of RTI across schools, and its lack of a school–university support system. Unlike larger school divisions, a smaller district was expected to have less variability in RTI practices than school districts with a larger numbers of schools to support. The suburban district was recently identified by the state as 1 of 19 school divisions to join a new cohort of schools initiating RTI. The district consisted of four schools at the elementary (Grades PK–1, Grades 2–4) and secondary levels (middle school Grades 5–7, high school Grades 8–12) with 350 full-time employees (192 full-time teachers, 8 school-based administrators, 6 district-based administrators, and 144 support staff), including an RTI coordinator. At the time of the study, both elementary and middle schools were in the second year of implementation, and the high school was beginning the first year. Student ethnicities were 71% Caucasian, 5% African American, 12% Hispanic, 8% Asian, and 4% Other. Less than 9% were identified as English as a second language Learners, 12% as having disabilities, and 5.8% qualified for free and/or reduced lunch.

Phase 1

Following approval of university and school district’s human subjects review boards, a link to an anonymous electronic questionnaire was emailed to school staff involved in the RTI initiative. Steps were followed to ensure a representative sample from the population; the survey request was identifiable as coming from within the school district, frequently used emails of the sample were obtained, respondents were informed in the survey that their names were in no way linked to their answers, and two additional email reminders were sent 1 week apart from each other. Specifically, the following research questions were addressed in the first phase: Do educators perceive (a) recommended educational practices (i.e., screening, progress monitoring, research-based instruction, collaboration) as feasible? (b) these practices as effectively implemented within their school? (c) that they have knowledge of basic RTI principles? and (d) that they are prepared to implement specific RTI procedures? Finally, do educator responses vary by school level (i.e., elementary, middle, high)?

Subjects

We specifically targeted full-time teachers or administrators who worked with students in academic areas relevant to RTI (N = 147). In all, 63 participants, representative of grade levels and professional roles within the district, responded for a return rate of 42.85%. Fifty-seven teachers (31 general education, 10 special education, 16 specialists such as reading or speech/language) and 6 administrators participated. Respondents were balanced between elementary and secondary levels (respectively, 48% and 52%). The majority of respondents were female (82.5%), and their ethnicities were Caucasian (90.5%), Asian (4.8%), and African American (1.6%). More than half had 6 or more years of teaching experience (76.2%), and 79.4% reported having a master’s degree.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was created by the project’s lead researchers based on basic RTI principles. The questionnaire was independently reviewed for conceptual accuracy by a faculty member with experience as an evaluator for Virginia’s RTI pilot program. The questionnaire was then pilot tested with 60 teachers enrolled in a graduate-level research methods course and then modified for content, length, and clarity based on feedback from these educators (e.g., eliminated ambiguity in wording, adjusted question order). The final questionnaire consisted of 30 items and 2 open-ended questions. So that participant perceptions would not be influenced by the term RTI, we first asked about general educational practices used in schools that are also inherent to RTI models (e.g., screening for academic difficulties and progress monitoring). Then, we asked about these practices within the context of RTI implementation. Furthermore, as elementary and secondary schools are not structured the same and because the knowledge base for RTI has focused primarily on the early elementary grades, we were also interested to understand how educator perceptions varied across school levels within the district.

Quantitative items

The first section consisted of 18 Likert-type items that addressed perceived feasibility and perceived effectiveness of educational practices, including screening to identify students with difficulties (reading, math, writing, content areas), progress monitoring (of individual students, to guide student instruction), and implementing evidence-based practices (reading, math). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale with strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree, and no basis for opinion as choices. Analysis of items using Cronbach’s alpha showed internal consistency in the good to excellent range for items related to perceived feasibility (.92) and perceived effectiveness of educational practices (.89).

The next section consisted of eight Likert-type items related to perceived knowledge of basic RTI concepts and perceived preparedness to implement specific RTI procedures (e.g., understanding the purpose of RTI within the school district, having adequate training to implement RTI assessment and instructional procedures). In addition, three multiple-choice items specifically addressed participants’ perceived knowledge and preparedness for the implementation of tiered instruction (i.e., Are there guidelines in place regarding appropriate instruction in Tier 1 in your school?). A final item asked whether tiered instruction was implemented with fidelity. Based on analysis of items using Cronbach’s alpha, internal consistency was in the good to excellent range for items related to perceived knowledge of RTI concepts (.88) and perceived preparedness to implement RTI procedures (.92).

Qualitative items

The final section of the questionnaire included two open-ended items to obtain answers that were unanticipated and/or to give an opportunity for respondents to provide perspectives in their own words (Fowler, 2009). Prompts asked participants to identify advantages/disadvantages since the adoption of the RTI model within their school and any changes that were observed.

Phase 1 Findings

Quantitative Questionnaire Items

Feasibility and effectiveness of educational practices

Table 1 presents the percentage of participants who responded with agree or strongly agree for each of the items related to perceived feasibility and perceived effectiveness of educational practices. The majority (>50%) of elementary school participants perceived all of the selected practices, but one (i.e., screening to identify struggling students in content area subjects), as both feasible for the classroom and effectively implemented in their school. In addition, a majority of secondary teachers perceived all of the selected practices, save three (i.e., screening to identify struggling students in writing, and implementing evidence-based reading and math instruction), to be feasible for the classroom and effectively implemented in their school.

Table 1.

Positive Responses by School Level for Classroom Feasibility and Effectiveness Likert-type Items.

	Elementary		Secondary
Educational practices	Classroom feasibility	School-wide effectiveness	Classroom feasibility	School-wide effectiveness
Screening to identify individual students with difficulties in
Reading	80%	83%	69%	82%
Math	73%	86%	59%	67%
Writing	64%	70%	48%	48%
Content areas	46%	50%	60%	54%
Progress monitoring
Of individual students	73%	80%	63%	57%
To guide instruction	80%	73%	60%	55%
Implementing evidence-based
Reading instruction	73%	73%	45%	42%
Math instruction	70%	73%	42%	39%

Note. Positive responses were 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) on the 5-point Likert-type scale (bolded >50%).

Perceived knowledge and preparedness of RTI

The results for remaining items are displayed and discussed by school level. A majority (>50%) of both elementary and middle school teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they understood (a) the purpose of RTI within their school district, (b) the purpose of each tier within RTI, and (c) the role of RTI in the identification of students with LD. However, across all school levels, a minority (<50%) of participants indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that they had (a) knowledge of who was responsible for implementing each tier, (b) adequate training to implement assessment and instruction procedures, (c) adequate time during the school day for RTI implementation, and (d) adequate preparation to explain the RTI process to parents. A limited understanding was pronounced at the high school level where perceived understanding of concepts averaged 31% across the eight items (range = 6%–48%). See Table 2.

Table 2.

Positive Responses by School Level for RTI Knowledge and Perception Likert-Type Items.

Knowledge and perception	Elementary	Middle	High
I understand the purpose of RTI within my school district.	73%	69%	41%
I feel knowledgeable about the purpose of each of the tiers within RTI.	53%	69%	48%
It is clear who is responsible for implementing each tier of RTI within my school.	30%	44%	12%
I have been adequately trained to implement RTI assessment procedures.	23%	37%	24%
I have been adequately trained to implement RTI instruction procedures.	23%	31%	30%
There is adequate structured time in the day for RTI implementation.	40%	19%	6%
I understand the role of the RTI process in the identification of students with disabilities.	67%	57%	47%
I feel adequately prepared to explain the RTI process to parents.	34%	50%	36%

Note. Positive responses were 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) on the 5-point Likert-type scale (bolded >50%). RTI = responsiveness to intervention.

Perceived knowledge and preparedness for tiered instruction

For Tiers 1 and 2, both elementary school (60%, 53%) and middle school respondents (56%, 75%) indicated that they were aware of RTI guidelines for tiered instruction. For Tier 3, more middle school respondents (81%) indicated that they were aware of guidelines than elementary school respondents (50%). Few high school participants were aware of guidelines for any of the tiers (range = 12%–24%). As shown in Table 3, the level of self-reported knowledge of guidelines and implementation of tiered instruction (e.g., confident about implementing, learning to implement, not yet trained to implement) varied across school levels. In addition, only two participants felt prepared to implement the interventions/strategies in the tiered model with fidelity.

Table 3.

Respondents Who Indicated Knowledge of Guidelines Related to Tiers of Responsiveness to Intervention.

Knowledge and preparedness	Elementary	Middle	High
Tier 1
Not aware/unsure of guidelines	40%	44%	76%
Aware of guidelines
Confident about implementing	23%	12%	12%
Learning to implement	23%	38%	6%
Not yet trained to implement	13%	6%	6%
Tier 2
Not aware of guidelines	47%	25%	88%
Aware of guidelines
Confident about implementing	3%	6%	0
Learning to implement	30%	50%	6%
Not yet trained to implement	20%	19%	6%
Tier 3
Not aware/unsure of guidelines	50%	19%	76%
Aware of guidelines
Confident about implementing	13%	0	12%
Learning to implement	20%	62%	6%
Not yet trained to implement	17%	19%	6%

Note. Significance of bold number percents highlight the unawareness of guidelines related to tiers of RTI.

Qualitative Questionnaire Items

A majority of participants provided open-ended responses (63% elementary school, 75% middle school, and 47% high school). Recurring regularities in the brief responses were coded and compared. The first author then sorted these regularities into categories, including (a) impact of RTI on students; (b) training, guidance, and support; (c) the need for time; (d) increase in educational practices; and (e) an increase in collaboration. Being responsive to the purpose of our research questions, the segments of data within these categories were then further organized by school and across school level (Merriam, 2009). Lead researchers then discussed the organization of segments for patterns and inconsistencies. Three themes emerged—that is (a) changes, (b) benefits, and (c) challenges—which, following further discussion, were later renamed to be (a) advantages/disadvantages of RTI and (b) school change.

Advantages/disadvantages of RTI

At the elementary and middle school levels, educator comments reflected perceptions of positive outcomes for students or, in some cases, an optimism for positive student outcomes. However, at the high school level, educators were consistently less optimistic. For example, one teacher noted . . . a lot of talk about students and little “action.” At all school levels, educators also expressed a lack of training, guidance, and support that often resulted in staff feeling confused, stressed, and/or frustrated. Finally, teachers at all school levels expressed how time influenced implementation. Elementary and middle school educators noted how structured time allowed for individualized and small group instruction; however, across all school levels, teachers expressed that there was not enough time to appropriately complete the work related to RTI—including time needed for professional development, planning, and collaboration.

School change

Elementary and middle school participants reported changes as an (a) increase in the use of educational practices and (b) increased collaboration. At the elementary school level, the collection and use of assessment data were most frequently mentioned as a change while at the middle school level, educators more frequently mentioned the adoption of new evidence-based programs. Meetings were consistently mentioned by participants (generally in the context of discussing student data) at all levels, with a few participants indicating that these meetings resulted in improved communication and collaboration.

Summary of Phase 1 Findings

A majority of respondents reported that educational practices common to RTI (e.g., progress monitoring, evidence-based instruction) were both feasible for the classroom and effectively implemented at their school, but that they had insufficient knowledge and/or training to implement these same practices within the context of their school district’s RTI model and inadequate time during the school day needed to do so. For example, elementary and middle school teachers reported that screening to identify students with difficulties in reading and math and progress monitoring are both feasible for the classroom and effectively done at their school. However, teachers then reported feeling less prepared to use this data to make decisions related to instruction or student movement between tiers within the RTI model. A similar pattern was observed with instruction—teachers indicated that evidence-based reading and math interventions were feasible for the classroom and effectively implemented at their school, but later indicated that they were not adequately trained to implement tiered instruction. Open-ended items revealed areas not captured within the quantitative data related to perceived changes in school culture, data collection, instructional practices, and increased collaboration. In addition, “time” was a factor across levels. Finally, perceptions of high school teachers were particularly disparaging about RTI implementation. To address additional questions that emerged and the implications of these findings, we collected additional data in Phase 2.

Phase 2

In phase 2, we wanted to understand how teachers perceived their preparation and support for RTI implementation, clarify how they perceived RTI implementation overall, and further explore the differences between elementary and secondary perspectives. Specifically, we addressed the following research questions: (a) What types of professional development did teachers receive and why do they perceive that RTI training, guidance, and support (including time) are not adequate? (b) Why didn’t teachers feel prepared to implement RTI when they responded positively about the feasibility and effectiveness of their school in using the practices that comprise RTI? and (c) Why were high school teachers so overtly negative about RTI?

Primary and Secondary Data Sources

Sample

After submitting responses from the questionnaire, respondents were asked in a separate e-link to provide contact information if they were interested in completing a follow-up interview. Eighteen individuals volunteered. We implemented a purposeful sampling of these individuals who represented roles typically observed on RTI leadership teams (Tackett, Roberts, Baker, & Scammacca, 2009), including a district level RTI coordinator, three general education teachers, three special education teachers, and four literacy/reading specialists to represent each school (four elementary, four middle, and two high). Their teaching experiences ranged from 7 years to 30 years (M = 14.2).

Teacher interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 teachers that ranged from 44 to 66 min. Each interview was conducted by the lead researcher with a second researcher present for 80% of interviews. The intent of these interviews was to document individual perspectives of RTI as they related to the questionnaire responses. The interview protocol consisted of 23 questions with clarifying questions asked when needed. The first part of the interview asked the respondent to describe professional experiences and educational history. Next, participants were asked to describe (a) where their school was in the implementation process of RTI, (b) what had changed since RTI began in the district, (c) who was involved, (d) how they were trained or supported, (e) interventions used, and (f) strengths and weaknesses of the process. The remaining questions asked participants to clarify or elaborate on responses from the questionnaire including (a) an increase in the frequency of data collection, (b) a basic understanding of the RTI process, (c) lack of adequate time for intervention during the school day, and (d) lack of clarity as to who is responsible for implementing each tier of RTI. Specifically, questions targeted the results from Phase 1 that were inconsistent across school levels or particularly prevalent for one school level. Field notes were taken during each interview.

RTI coordinator interview

A 60-min interview was conducted with the RTI coordinator. As the RTI coordinator oversaw the rolling out of the initiative, we asked semi-structured questions related to (a) the district’s professional development opportunities, (b) perceived involvement of personnel, and (c) variations observed across schools.

Observation

The intent of the observation was to contextualize references made during the interviews to “data meetings.” The lead researcher was a non-participant observer. Observational field notes were taken both during and after the 60-min meeting.

Data Analysis

Primary data source

Interviews were transcribed verbatim by graduate student researchers, and first-level member checks were used to establish credibility (Brantlinger, Jiminez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). All respondents were emailed the data from their interviews and asked whether they agreed with their respective transcription, and some provided updated information since the interview (e.g., an intervention time was to be implemented for the following year, etc.). Analysis was simultaneous with data collection, and a step-by-step process of analysis was used (Merriam, 2009). First, after reading through the transcriptions, the first researcher and a graduate research assistant independently applied open coding to a selected transcript. In doing so, the researchers began identifying segments in the data set that were responsive to answering the research questions (Merriam, 2009). After comparing open codes and refining primary and sub-codes, a common list of codes was independently applied to a second transcription. After a final comparison of independent coding, 10 primary categories and 25 subcategories were agreed upon and defined. The two researchers then independently used these categories to examine the data via NVivo 8 software. Throughout this stage of coding, the researchers met weekly to determine whether any categories were not necessary, to determine whether clarification of the categorical definitions were needed, and to resolve any differences (e.g., subcategories progress monitoring, frequency, and screening tools were collapsed as assessment). Memos and annotations were linked to data, and an audit trail of dates for interviews, observations, and field notes were maintained (Merriam, 2009). The memos and annotations served as a way for the researchers to incorporate the additional data from the interview with the RTI coordinator and the data meeting.

To further enhance the consistency and trustworthiness of the analysis, the fourth researcher served as a peer debriefer (Brantlinger et al., 2005). Using the coding scheme, the peer debriefer provided conclusions from the sorted data, identified any surprises, and revealed any biases or problems with the analysis. Contradicting data or disconfirming evidence across categories and emerging themes (i.e., uncertainty, alienation, roles and responsibilities, practical vs. theoretical, and lack of clarity) were also examined at this time. In such a case, the researchers went back to the original data to analyze whether there was any information that might clarify the anomaly. For example, when one interviewee identified less collaboration among colleagues, the researchers went back to the data to analyze whether other teachers had perceived a sense of isolation given the onset of the RTI initiative. The peer debriefer provided subsequent feedback to verify the analysis and to provide further input. To establish convergence among multiple investigators, the researchers met bi-weekly to discuss any disconfirming evidence or anomalies and emergent themes generated from the data. In some instances, the researchers went back to the data and analyzed it from a different perspective and changed or combined codes. In other instances, initial themes and subthemes emerged. To meaningfully link the categories and initial themes, as well as provide a narrative account of the findings, subthemes from the analysis were organized by research question.

Secondary data sources

Observational data, memos, and annotations were used for data triangulation throughout data analysis. For example, data from the observation of the data meeting were used to refute or corroborate conclusions from the interview data.

Phase 2 Findings

Findings from Phase 2 are reported by research question. Participant perceptions of preparation and support, overall perceptions of RTI implementation, and finally, notable differences across school levels are reported.

Preparation and Support

When considering preparation and support for RTI implementation, most teachers referenced professional development (or lack thereof) and how time impacted their efforts for implementation (either positively or negatively). Prior to RTI implementation, a voluntary 2 day professional development was provided for district administrators and school leaders by a state representative. Thereafter, the representative served as a consultant and observed two data meetings at the elementary level to “consult with administration on staff progress.” Some middle school participants indicated that in-house teachers returned from the summer training to share their new knowledge with others, but noted that there was limited “follow up in small groups to talk about the training” and minimal “training on actual implementation.”

At the time of data collection, voluntary workshops were reportedly offered monthly at the elementary level. Individuals could attend workshops on progress monitoring, data collection, and/or instructional programs (e.g., Read Well). The quality and attendance of these opportunities were not reported. However, the RTI specialist indicated that the degree of RTI implementation in each of the schools within the district was largely influenced by building specific dynamics such as motivated leaders and personnel. She stated, “ . . . instead of a specific role, [we have taken] a skill set approach . . . whoever has that skill set, we have tried to foster that [person] to take the lead.” The teacher interviews illuminated the impact of this approach to professional development and RTI support at the elementary and middle school levels.

Professional development

When asked to describe RTI at their school, most elementary and middle school teachers indicated a surface-level knowledge of RTI that evolved with time and experience. A middle school general education teacher described the rollout of RTI as

. . . 2 years ago, it was kind of thrown at us. I don’t think any of us knew what it was. Like they’re “Okay; this is RTI,” and [they] start explaining it. And we were like “Where did this come from?” . . . So we had some professional development, but not a lot of context for what it is. And I feel like what I know now . . . it’s just a framework for kind of organizing your interventions and making sure that everybody gets what they need. If that had been told to us that way 2 years ago . . . people would have a better understanding.

A marked need for continuing support and further training for the practicality of RTI components were revealed (e.g., “ . . . additional professional development days I think would be critical for people to receive more training in how these programs can help them”). Some teachers received training in particular programs whereas, “typically, the general education teacher [was] not.” A participant mentioned that there was a lack of training in the use of assessment tools and/or data collection programs noting, “I don’t input anything . . . I don’t know who does it (inputs the data).”

Although assessments were provided, and data were inputted or “dumped” into programs, a few teachers disclosed that they were unable to discern what to do with that data. In addition, most perceived that they were not provided with adequate training to use the tools of assessment effectively. Finally, a few participants reported feeling less comfortable in their ability to implement interventions as designed. An elementary reading specialist uniquely expressed,

Well this child is having trouble blending words. But now, what do I do? You know, knowing exactly [what to do]. They kind of know generally what it means, but how do you do it? How do you actually, physically do the intervention? And when do you do that intervention? And also, how do I know that the intervention that I’m using is research-based? . . . I also think people get bogged down in this [concept of] “Is it a Tier 2 intervention? Tier 3?”—some of that lingo might confuse people. And I think the data collection and analysis is probably an area where people are like “Whoa!”

RTI implementation is difficult without guidance and support. Whereas some teachers resorted to “I am doing this on my own—no one is showing me,” others found support from colleagues.

Time

Teachers identified a lack of time as a significant barrier. At both elementary and middle school levels, most educators positively noted that there was structured time for individualized and small group instruction for students. However, all teachers expressed limited time for appropriately completing the work related to RTI (e.g., professional development, assessments, planning, and collaboration). A reading specialist for Grades 2 to 4 explained the challenge:

. . . collecting that information is happening in place of maybe some instructional components and so teachers are really trying to figure out “How do I balance these two?” and then also in looking at the data. So now that I have all this information, “What to do with it?” And of course there’s not time to do that during the school day, and even in team planning times when you have maybe an hour and you have seven teachers around the table and each teacher has one or two students that they’ve had concerns about—that kind of conversation can’t happen in a real short amount of time. So, I think that’s the age old [problem]: not enough time.

Likewise, an elementary teacher noted that inadequate resources fell on the “already overtaxed classroom teacher.” To compensate, a middle school general education teacher proposed a better use of resources would be to group students across grade levels. Finally, a shortage of time seemed to hinder the quality of instruction, as well. For example, the master middle school schedule did not accommodate some interventions that required a 90-min block of instruction. In addition, an elementary teacher noted that many students needed support in more than one instructional area but that there was only enough time in the day to “take care of one.”

Implementation of RTI

Several themes regarding the implementation of RTI emerged, including structural capacity to implement, conceptualization of a tiered framework, and changes in educational programs/practices. Elementary and middle school participant responses are reported here because these teachers were actively implementing RTI at the time of the study. Data from high school educators were reported separately to better represent their unique perspective.

Capacity: Structure

Participants helped us to understand the structure to implement tiered instruction across school levels. The time to deliver the instructional interventions was established in one of the two elementary schools, and the middle school. For K–1, the building instructional leader stated that an intervention time for reading was “in the plans” for the following school year. In Grades 2 to 4, an intervention block for supplemental reading instruction was scheduled 4 days a week for 30 min. During this time, students were pulled out for support in small groups. During the typical instructional period, the specialists and/or special education teachers “pushed-in.” The intervention time at the middle school was for 30 to 45 min a day with a varied time of day by grade. Each student was placed consistently in an instructional group during the intervention period at each grade level.

Tiered framework

Interview data support findings from the questionnaire that most teachers understood the basic purpose of RTI— “ . . . a framework to tier the kids based on what they need. When kids don’t respond to general instruction then we move those kids up the tiers—[for example] Tier 2 intervention, small group.” Interview data were also consistent with questionnaire findings in suggesting that teachers are less prepared to implement specific RTI procedures. Interview responses illuminated areas of confusion and hesitation by teachers about (a) RTI terminology used, (b) who is responsible, and (c) when RTI and/or components of RTI should occur (e.g., movement between tiers).

Several teachers made comments that suggested some confusion about the terminology used to describe RTI. This is illustrated by a comment from a middle school general educator:

And I think it is confusing. I won’t say that I understand it completely. You know as far as who’s in what tier and . . . actually not who’s in what tier, but what constitutes a tier? Like a student who might be one-on-one with me? I might call that Tier 2, [but] some people might want to call it a Tier 3 because they’re thinking intensive . . .

Furthermore, an elementary school teacher responded, “ . . . I wish I could say I’m really clear on what the different tiers are [but I can’t].”

Most interview responses also suggested a lack of clarity regarding decision making and responsibilities of personnel. A hesitation to make decisions was reflected by teacher responses. A middle school reading specialist commented, “Yes, I think they can move [between tiers]. But not, I think, without someone initiating it? But, I don’t think that happens often enough.” A few teachers across grade levels also reported a lack of clarity about when students can move across tiers (e.g., “[we are] trying to clarify the parameters or the requirements for how students receive more intensive interventions like a pull out”) and how to interpret RTI progress monitoring data (e.g., “ . . . the majority of [middle school] teachers probably don’t know what CBM is . . . ”).

An observed “data meeting” in the middle school that included nine teachers who worked with sixth-grade students, the RTI coordinator, principal, and one guidance counselor illustrated some of these issues. At the meeting, a spreadsheet was displayed to the team with categories for tracking student assessment performance over time (i.e., score, percent) and interventions (i.e., current interventions, intervention follow-up, new intervention). Interventions were both specific (e.g., STAR Reading, Language!) and non-specific (e.g., computer-based program, testing strategies, verbal prompting). During the 3 to 8 min allotted to discuss a single student, teachers examined a sixth grader’s growth on the STAR Math assessment. On observing the selected intervention as VMath®, a teacher then clarified verbally, “That’s a Level 3, [VMath®] right?” and then self-corrected, “ . . . no, no a Level 2 . . . yeah.” Interventions were identified as falling in tiers, but a criterion for moving across tiers was not observed in the meeting. Furthermore, for one student, following discussion, the facilitator typed below the “new interventions” column to “continue with current plan.” There was no discussion as to who would implement or when the intervention would occur. Moreover, there was not a discussion or decision made to consider students’ transition to more intense or less intense levels of instruction across the tiers.

The RTI coordinator explained that a shift in thinking related to how RTI differs from pre-referral for special education is still in process:

We are still kind of ironing out the criterion and the movement between the tiers. And we still have that historical [notion] “well quick—have the paper trail.” . . . the perception [is] that we can’t do anything until we get them to school-based team. Getting to school-based team is the “magic bullet,” and once we get there, something “magical” happens.

Educational practices/programs

Most elementary respondents frequently mentioned an increased use of time spent collecting and using assessment data since RTI implementation (e.g., “We are using more screening tools. We are beginning to progress monitor”). Overall, most participants perceived that there was a lot of testing and probably too much. A middle school general education teacher stated that, “ . . . when we actually came together . . . and made a list, the list was like four or five pages long . . . of all the assessments we give.” However, a lack of systematic administration was alluded to by the upper elementary reading teacher: “ . . . as far as setting up parameters for ‘this will be administered this many times’ or ‘this often for this population of students’—that hasn’t been set so it’s up to the teacher’s discretion.” Ten assessments (screening or for progress monitoring) were referenced across school levels with middle school identifying the most, including state tests, quarterly benchmarks, formal progress monitoring assessments in reading and math, and informal reading inventories. Despite the abundance of assessments, a teacher indicated that the district may be considering a structural change (e.g., “We have all kinds of other assessments throughout the district that are in various fluctuations of do we keep them or do we not”).

Another structural change consistently noted was the adoption of new “ . . . more formalized evidence-based programs . . . purchased for language arts and math instruction” since the onset of RTI. This was particularly pronounced at the middle school level as one general educator explained, “Students are being placed in specific programs that ideally are a better fit for them at their current understanding.” For example, middle school sixth graders were placed into one of the following instructional groups during the designated intervention time: (a) enrichment for math, writing, or reading; (b) re-teaching of concepts for math or reading; or (c) intensive remediation using LANGUAGE: the Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum® (4–6 students), TransMath® (5–7 students), or VMath® (12–14 students). At the elementary level, a variety of specific programs were identified (e.g., Reading Recovery, Read Well K–2, the Waterford Early Reading Program®, and the Wilson reading system®) as well as general instructional approaches (e.g., guided reading, word study).

Differences by Level

Several themes emerged to help explain differences in the perceptions of RTI at the secondary level, including perceived impact of RTI on students and a lack of buy-in and/or misconceptions from practitioners about the critical elements of RTI.

Perceived impact on students

Whereas data from elementary level teachers perceived RTI positively noting that students had the opportunity to receive more focused instruction and teachers were more knowledgeable of how students were progressing, a few secondary teachers expressed concern for the social stigma that RTI may have on students. A secondary-level interviewee shared, “I know that personally, I pull kids at lunch, recess, after school . . . to do some of those things because they are not always comfortable doing it in front of their peers.” Teachers also mentioned that students may miss opportunities for socialization during these times to support academic needs. In addition, when students’ schedules were frequently changed to accommodate interventions, teachers were concerned that students would perceive these changes as failure (e.g., “Why do I have to do more math or reading?”). The high school reading specialist elaborated,

I think that it’s daunting for some of them and there’s a certain level of giving up. I don’t know how RTI accounts for that, you know because when you’re 18 or 17 and reading is a trial for you, there’s a whole constellation of issues that comes with that. You don’t see [that] as much at the elementary level or even at the middle school level.

Capacity: Buy-in and misconceptions

For both high school participants, a limited understanding of RTI, professional development, and support was especially pronounced. A high school teacher commented, “I know that if you asked my colleagues who are not reading instructors. They wouldn’t know what RTI . . . I mean they would have a vague sense of what RTI is . . . ” Another teacher frankly shared, “I’m not really sure what my role is and I’m not sure how we are classifying Tier 1 and Tier 2, and Tier 3.”

A lack of preparation and support resounded in a teachers comment that, “I don’t think we have put enough focus on RTI. I think we did in the beginning . . . I don’t think it was necessarily rolled out in the most effective way.” Another teacher stated, “I cannot remember the presentations. I mean I feel like they were so long ago.” Perhaps recognizing the need, the RTI specialist shared that her primary role in the forthcoming year would be to provide support to the high school and her office would physically move to the high school. This targeted plan may have been precipitated by the negative perceptions of RTI shared by high school participants. One teacher described RTI as a cause of “more stress among faculty.” High school teachers clarified that assessments were infrequent and typically consisted of state test scores, and there were limited instances of progress monitoring. The lack of teacher buy-in limits the capacity for RTI implementation at the high school level (e.g., “I am not learning anything about RTI. It seems distant from me. The meetings were not particularly helpful”).

Although the high school had a structured intervention time in the daily schedule, use of this time was less clear. The reading specialist at the high school described the 45-min intervention block for students as “a remediation period” in which “students will end up seeking out their teachers [for help].” One high school interviewee commented, “Good kids do the right thing during this time, [but] kids that need help often don’t.” The quality of instruction during this time was ill-defined. Foremost, of the two high school interviewees, research-based instruction was described as instruction “[that was] bearing fruit” or was reportedly misconceived as instruction “[with] a pretest.” Second, a more concrete representation of what may be needed for teachers to more effectively put research into practice was echoed by the reading specialist:

Do you need to physically see that [instruction] happen so you really get the . . . just even the physical manifestation, what that looks like in a classroom . . . to watch videos of teachers . . . doing it well . . . and talking about how it can work well in different subjects.

Although most elementary teachers described a similar challenge of translating the theoretical underpinnings of RTI to the classroom, the high school teachers identified a structural dilemma exclusive to the secondary level. The English teacher explained,

It is a different structure. As much as we want to help kids and give them that flexibility of moving from classes and in an out, it’s really hard . . . it’s hard to manipulate their schedule and manipulate teacher’s schedules in such a way that allows for that kind of education and teaching [RTI] . . . I think in order for something, my mother always says, what you focus on grows, and I don’t think we have put enough focus on RTI.

Summary of Phase 2 Findings

Phase 2 findings helped us to deepen our understanding as to why educators throughout the district perceived a need for more guidance and support within the RTI framework. Not only did they lack confidence with the tiered model of instruction, as identified in Phase 1, but they also lacked the practical knowledge and skills necessary to use many of RTIs’ critical components, including the intentional use of assessments and the systematic implementation of instruction with fidelity. Furthermore, there was notable confusion about terms, procedures for tiered instruction, and roles in the RTI framework that were only exacerbated by a perceived limitation of time. Despite access to interventions and assessments and a general capacity to implement at the elementary and middle school level, a convincing need for professional development and support was evident. Professional development and support was intermittent at best. Phase 2 findings also exposed why high school participants were especially skeptical of RTI, mentioning a potential social stigma for students and an inflexible school schedule.

Summary and Concluding Discussion

Implementation of RTI is a considerable leap in the complex realities of schools, and research indicates that the initial years of RTI implementation are particularly challenging. Previous investigations, predominately investigated at the individual school level (Fisher & Frey, 2013; Stuart, Rinaldi, & Higgins-Averill, 2011; White et al., 2012), have illustrated the perspectives of teachers who play active roles in RTI during the initial years of implementation. Participants in these early years are typically less clear as to how data are explicitly used, how methods for intervention are determined, and how to effectively organize the tiers of intervention (L. S. Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012). Participant perceptions in the current study were consistent with the existing literature but extend to school-based educators at both the elementary and secondary level in one school district. Despite the support of an RTI coordinator in the district, findings from our study indicate that additional prerequisites for sound implementation of RTI at every school level is systematic and consistent professional development while considering the time limitations of educators. Research to date has largely investigated researcher-driven implementation of RTI with substantial support (Fisher & Frey, 2013; Greenfield et al., 2010). However, many schools lack such extensive external supports, and in the current economic climate, it is likely that resources will remain scarce. The findings of this study illustrate how implementation of RTI plays out in a school district when external supports are not available.

Especially pronounced was that high school teachers expressed acute frustration and need for resources and training. Despite an overall representation of participants in Phase 1 perceiving general education practices as feasible and effective and elementary and middle school participants in Phase 2 articulating specific evidence-based programs, practices, and assessments, the perceived level of preparedness to apply these practices within an RTI framework waned with a substantial lack of “buy-in” at the high school level. Thoughtful and effective strategies for quality RTI implementation are needed especially at the district level, where there are a variety of additional challenges (O’Conner & Freeman, 2012). The current study gleaned recommendations for professional development of RTI and implications for RTI at the secondary level.

Strategic Professional Development

Professional development to promote school reform is often about not only improving student achievement but also effectively changing the way teachers do things in schools. The current study suggests considerations for approaching RTI professional development of teachers. Our data suggest that the teachers in our study were familiar with several basic practices that are inherent to an RTI model, but that they needed more specific guidance and training about how to use them within an RTI framework. Our findings suggest that it may be expedient to begin with the practices teachers reportedly have familiarity with and/or high degrees of confidence implementing. In this way, professional development related to RTI would explicitly connect the new to the known. In doing so, it is important that language used to refer to practices within the RTI framework should be clear and understandable (Graden, Stollar, & Poth, 2007).

A second suggestion is to demystify RTI by providing less theoretical and more practical guidance for teacher development. Specifically, educators need training that addresses “w” questions related to RTI: “Who does it?” “What do they do—specifically?” “Where does it happen?” “When does it happen and for how long?” and “How should decisions be made within the process?” Because the use of evidence-based practices (e.g., progress monitoring, explicit and systematic instruction) is an integral part of the RTI framework, the identification and implementation of these practices across tiers are necessary in a successful RTI model (Burns & Scholin, 2013; Mellard et al., 2011). Therefore, professional development that clarifies not only what qualifies as an evidence-based practice but also guidance as to how to implement the practice would be helpful to teachers at the classroom level.

Finally, one way of affecting change in what teachers do instructionally may include instructional coaches (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Research suggests that a single dose or infrequent sessions of professional development are ineffective ways to teach others skills and that continuous on-site coaching with feedback encourages better outcomes (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Training or coaching of a practice or program is critical to ensure that interventions are delivered with a high degree of fidelity (Keller-Margulis, 2012). Regardless, as knowledge and understanding of RTI occurs on a continuum, an approach to professional development and training should be ongoing to ensure sustainability (O’Conner & Freeman, 2012).

The Secondary Dilemma

Participants at the high school level in the current investigation demonstrated that they were the least prepared to implement RTI, and they expressed universally negative attitudes toward the initiative. External supports are most essential during the fragile stage of initial implementation when individuals are “just learning how to change to accommodate and support the new ways of work” (Fixsen et al., 2013). Quality professional development should begin at the onset of initial implementation when resistance is particularly pronounced (Fixsen et al., 2013). Failure to do so can limit educator buy-in resulting in statements like we observed in the current study “ . . . I am not learning anything about RTI. It seems distant from me.” The frustration and negative attitudes portrayed by the high school participants are not surprising given the lack of support and professional development combined with the nuances of early implementation. Buy-in is critical for any sustainable and high-quality implementation (Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Furthermore, RTI is a hard sell for teachers who perceive that an intense amount of flexibility within the schedule is needed at the high school level.

In addition, the current study suggests a social stigma that may be perpetuated by an RTI model at the secondary level. The literature has yet to address the social benefits/barriers of RTI and/or the effects of this type of academic labeling (e.g., “that is an RTI kid”). These findings are not completely surprising because past research has shown that guidance for RTI at the high school level is sparse (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2009; Harlacher & Siler, 2011; King, Lemons, & Hill, 2012; Werts et al., 2009). Although research is increasing on the effectiveness of RTI, the bulk of studies focus on the elementary school levels. The result is that there is limited information about best practice for RTI implementation from which schools can draw. Furthermore, some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that a different model of RTI may be needed at the secondary level (e.g., L. S. Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012).

Limitations and Implications for Practice

The findings of this study illustrate practitioner perceptions of only one school district. Thus, a generalization of findings is limited. Furthermore, the return rate of the questionnaire was not optimal, and incentives may have increased the response rate. However, the return rate of 42.85% is above the average of previous survey studies of comparable populations (total return rate of 33.8%; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; 36% Gagnon & Maccini, 2007). Nevertheless, the results do provide a rich detail of RTI implementation that can be comparative for individual schools or districts at early stages of the initiative. The results of this study may be most relevant for settings that lack external supports to facilitate implementation.

In response to this national need of support, technical assistance centers and associations throughout the country have provided resources to support states with RTI, train stakeholders, and build capacity (e.g., Center on Response to Intervention, www.rti4success.org; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, www.nasdse.org); however, much more research is needed to inform effective implementation efforts of RTI within the field—particularly at the secondary level. In addition, research regarding RTI implementation in schools that lack extensive external supports is needed given that in the current economic climate, it is likely that resources will remain scarce. Research of science implementation indicates that there are four stages of implementation: exploration, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation (Blase & Fixsen, 2013). The implementation framework outlined by Fixsen et al. (2005) and found at the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN; http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu) identifies the functions of each stage in the implementation process with permissive toggling between stages. The findings of this study support current research that if ample time is not devoted to the first stage of exploration, implementation will have less chance for success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Berkeley

Bender

W. N.

Peaster

L. G.

Saunders

(2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95. doi:10.1177/0022219408326214

Berkeley

Riccomini

P. J.

(2011). Academic progress monitoring. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 334–347). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Blase

Fixsen

(2013). Stages of implementation analysis: Where are we? Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-Education-StagesOfImplementationAnalysisWhereAreWe.pdf

Bradley

Danielson

Doolittle

(2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 8–12.

Brantlinger

Jiminez

Klingner

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207. doi:10.1177/001440290507100205

Burns

M. K.

Scholin

(2013). Response to intervention: School-wide prevention of academic difficulties. In Lloyd

J. W.

Landrum

T. J.

Cook

B. G.

Tankersley

(Eds.), Research-based approaches for assessment (pp. 8–17). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Burns

M. K.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 3–11. doi:10.1177/0022466908315563

Chard

D. J.

(2012). Systems impact: Issues in improving school outcomes for all learners through multitier instructional models. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 198–202. doi:10.1177/1053451212462876

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

10.

Deno

S. L.

(2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801

11.

Denton

C. A.

Vaughn

Fletcher

J. M.

(2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211.

12.

Fisher

Frey

(2013). Implementing RTI in a high school: A case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 99–114. doi:10.1177/0022219411407923

13.

Fixsen

D. L.

Blase

Metz

Van Dyke

(2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213–230.

14.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blase

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: The National Implementation Research Network, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.

15.

Fowler

F. J.

(2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

16.

Fuchs

Deshler

D. D.

(2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.

17.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92–99.

18.

Fuchs

Mock

Morgan

Young

(2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.

19.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

(2012). Smart RTI: A next generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.

20.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.

21.

Gagnon

J. C.

Maccini

(2007). Validated and standards based instructional approaches in secondary mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 43–56.

22.

Graden

J. L.

Stollar

S. A.

Poth

R. L.

(2007). The Ohio Integrated Systems Model: Overview and lessons learned. In Jimerson

Burns

VanDerHeyden

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 288–299). New York, NY: Springer Media.

23.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Greenfield

Rinaldi

Proctor

C. P.

Cardarelli

(2010). Teacher’s perceptions of response to intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 47–63.

25.

Greenwood

C. R.

Kamps

Terry

B. J.

Linebarger

D. L.

(2007). Primary prevention: A means of preventing special education? In Haager

Klingner

J. K.

Vaughn

(Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 73–103). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

26.

Harlacher

J. E.

Siler

C. E.

(2011). Factors related to successful RTI implementation. Communique, 39, 20–22.

27.

Hughes

C. A.

Dexter

D. D.

(2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory Into Practice, 50, 4–11. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534909

28.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

29.

Jenkins

J. R.

Schiller

Blackorby

Thayer

S. K.

Tilly

D. W.

(2013). Responsiveness to intervention in reading: Architecture and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 36–46. doi:10.1177/0731948712464963

30.

Joyce

B. R.

Showers

(2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

31.

Keller-Margulis

M. A.

(2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 342–352.

32.

King

S. A.

Lemons

C. J.

Hill

D. R.

(2012). Response to intervention in secondary schools considerations for administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 5–22.

33.

Klingner

J. K.

Boardman

A. G.

(2011). Addressing the “Research Gap” in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 208–218.

34.

Mellard

D. F.

Stern

Woods

(2011). RTI school-based practices and evidence-based models. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1–15.

35.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

O’Conner

E. P.

Freeman

E. W.

(2012). District-level considerations in sustaining and supporting RTI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 297–310.

37.

Reynolds

C. R.

Shaywitz

S. E.

(2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.

38.

Rinaldi

Averill

O. H.

Stuart

(2011). Response to intervention: Educator’s perceptions of a three year RTI collaborative reform effort in an urban elementary school. Journal of Education, 191, 43–53.

39.

RTI Action Network. (n.d.). What is RTI? Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti

40.

Sarason

S. B.

(1996). Toward a psychology of change and innovation. In Lorion

R. P.

Iscoe

Deleon

P. H.

VandenBos

G. R.

(Eds.), Psychology and public policy: Balancing public service and professional need (pp. 29–39). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

41.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113

42.

Stuart

Rinaldi

Higgins-Averill

(2011). Agents of change: Voices of teachers on response to intervention. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 7, 53–73.

43.

Tackett

K. K.

Roberts

Baker

Scammacca

(2009). Implementing response to intervention: Practices and perspectives from five schools. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction at RMC Research Corporation.

44.

Vaughn

Fletcher

J. M.

(2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256. doi:10.1177/0022219412442157

45.

Vaughn

Linan-Thompson

(2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140–147. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030301

46.

Werts

M. G.

Lambert

Carpenter

(2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 245–254.

47.

Weston

J. R.

Curran

C. M.

Majsterek

D. J.

Prigge

D. J.

(2010). An exploratory study in self-reported school-wide response to intervention reading practices. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 125–132.

48.

White

R. B.

Polly

Audette

R. H.

(2012). A case analysis of an elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73–90. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.632067

49.

Zirkel

P. A.

Thomas

L. B.

(2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 56–63.