This 2-year qualitative case study examined factors influencing implementation and sustainability of collaborative problem-solving programs. One selected elementary school served as the focus site. Using a participant—observer field-based approach, data were collected via observations, interviews, mute evidence, and field notes. During Year 1 of the study, implementation integrity was high, participants' perceptions of the process were positive, professional collaboration was enhanced, students' academic and behavioral concerns were effectively addressed, and special education rates were reduced. However, successful implementation was not sustained during Year 2 following a dramatic reduction in support from the school district. Analysis revealed district-level decisions exert a significant and cascading effect on procedures, perceptions, and ultimately, student outcomes. Within that context, implications for practice are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AthanasiousM. S.GeilM.HazelC. E.CopelandE. P. (2002). A look inside school-based consultation: A qualitative study of the beliefs and practices of school psychologists and teachers. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 258–298.
2.
BahrM. W.KovaleskiJ. F. (2006). The need for problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 2–5.
3.
BahrM. W.WalkerK.HamptonE. M.BuddleB. S.FreemanT.RuschmanN. (2006). Creative problem solving for general education intervention teams: A two year evaluation study. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 27–41.
4.
BahrM. W.WhittenE.DiekerL.KocarekC. E.MansonD. (1999). A comparison of school-based intervention teams: Implications for educational and legal reform. Exceptional Children, 66, 67–83.
5.
BatscheG. M.KnoffH. M. (1995). Best practices in linking assessment to intervention. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology III (pp. 569–586). Silver Spring, MD: The National Association of School Psychologists.
6.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
BoudahD. J.LoganK. R.GreenwoodC. R. (2001). The research to practice projects: Lessons learned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 290–303.
8.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
9.
BuckG. H.PollowayE. A.Smith-ThomasA.CookK. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349–360.
10.
BurnsM. K.SymingtonT. (2002). A meta-analysis of prereferral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 437–447.
11.
DenzinN. K. (2004). The art and politics of interpretation. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 447–472). New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2005). Methods of collecting and analyzing empirical materials. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 641–649). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?. Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–479.
14.
District. (2002). [Problem Solving Together]. District location: Author.
15.
EisenhardtK. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 5–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17.
FlugumK. R.ReschlyD. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–15.
18.
FontanaA.FreyJ. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BahrM. W.FernstromP.SteckerP. M. (1990). Prereferral intervention: A prescriptive approach. Exceptional Children, 56, 493–513.
20.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.HarrisA. H.RobertsP. H. (1996). Bridging the research-to-practice gap with mainstream assistance teams: A cautionary tale. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 244–266.
21.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disability construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Principles for sustaining research-based practice in the schools: A case study. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(6), 1–14.
23.
FullanM. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
GradenJ. L.CaseyA.ChristensonS. L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part I. The Model. Exceptional Children, 51, 377–384.
25.
GravoisT. A.RosenfieldS. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 42–52.
26.
HammondH.IngallsL. (1999). Maintaining school-based prereferral teams: An eight year study. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(2), 17–21.
27.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2004). Unleashing Frankenstein's monster? The use of computers in qualitative research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 535–545). New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
HodderI. (2003). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 155–175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
IngallsL.HammondH. (1996). Prereferral school-based teams: How effective are they?. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 15(2), 9–18.
30.
KnotekS. (2003). Bias in problem solving and the social process of student study teams: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Special Education, 27, 2–16.
31.
KovaleskiJ. F.GicklingE. E.MorrowH.SwankP. R. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170–183.
32.
KovaleskiJ. F.GlewM. C. (2006). Bringing Instructional Support Teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania Experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16–25.
33.
KrugerL. J.StruzzieroJ.WattsR.VaccaD. (1995). The relationship between organizational support and satisfaction with teacher assistance teams. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 203–211.
34.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2002). Judging the quality of case study reports. In HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 205–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
MarstonD.MuyskensP.LauM.CanterA. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.
37.
McDougalJ. L.ClonanS. M.MartensB. K. (2000). Using organizational change procedures to promote the acceptability of prereferral intervention services: The school-based intervention team project. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 149–171.
MilesM.HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
NoellG. H.WittJ. C.SliderN. J.ConnellJ. E.GattiS. L.WilliamsK. L. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.
41.
OrmsbeeC. K.HaringK. A. (2000). Rural pre- assessment team members' perceptions of effectiveness. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(1), 17–25.
42.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
PurcellM. L.HornE.PalmerS. (2007). A qualitative study of the initiation and continuation of preschool inclusion programs. Exceptional Children, 74, 85–99.
44.
RafothM. A.ForiskaT. (2006). Administrator participation in promoting effective problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 130–135.
45.
RockM. L.ZigmondN. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or symbolism?. Preventing School Failure, 45, 153–161.
46.
RosenfieldS. A.GravoisT. A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. New York: Guilford Press.
47.
RubinsonF. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing problem-solving teams in urban high schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 185–217.
48.
SilvermanD. (2003). Analyzing talk and text. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 340–362). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
SindelarP. T.ShearerD. K.Yendol-HoppeyD.LiebertT. W. (2006). The sustainability of inclusive reform. Exceptional Children, 72, 317–331.
50.
Slonski-FowlerK. E.TruscottS. D. (2004). General education teachers' perceptions of the prereferral intervention team process. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 1–39.
51.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
TelzrowC. F.McNamaraK.HollingerC. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.
53.
WelchM.BrownellK.SheridanS. M. (1999). What's the score and game plan on teaming in schools? A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 36–49.
