Based on the 2015 evaluation of response-to-intervention (RTI) efforts and our own 2 decades of experience in supporting educators’ implementation of RTI efforts, four recommendations are presented to advance effective implementation of tiered systems of intervention. We suggest that by (a) assessing readiness and capacity, (b) providing content and coaching as part of professional development, (c) using evaluation data, and (d) including students with disabilities, educators can make strides to implement RTI more effectively and help to meet the needs of all students in today’s schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaluR.ZhuP.DoolittleF.SchillerE.JenkinsJ.GerstenR. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164000/pdf/20164000.pdf
2.
BlaseK. (2009) Technical assistance to promote service and system change. Roadmap to effective implementation practices #4. Tampa: University of South Florida, Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children.
3.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Building consensus for identification and classification. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 69–73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children,79, 135–144. doi:10.1177/001440291307900201
6.
CornettJ.KnightJ. (2009). Research on coaching. In KnightJ. (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 192–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
7.
DusenburyL.BranniganR.FalcoM.HansenW. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237–256. doi:10.1093/her/18.2.237
8.
Education Pioneers. (2014). Masters of complexity: Leading effectively in public education. Oakland, CA: Author.
9.
Every Student Succeeds Act of2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).
10.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida. Retrieved from http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/PDF/nirnmonograph.pdf
11.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279. doi:10.1177/001440291207800301
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. doi:10.1177/001440291007600304
13.
GandhiA.MarxT.KuchleL.LemonsC.WehbyJ. (2016, August). Implementing multi-level evaluation to improve intensive intervention: What did we learn?Session presented at the OSEP Project Director’s Conference, Washington, DC.
14.
GandhiA. G.VaughnS.StelitanoL.ScalaJ.DanielsonL. (2015). Lessons learned from district implementation of intensive intervention: A focus on students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 28, 39–49.
15.
GreenhalghT.RobertG.MacfarlaneF.BateP.KyriakidouO. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
16.
HauerwasL. B.BrownR.ScottA. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80, 101–120.
17.
HornerR. H.SugaiG.SmolkowskiK.EberL.NakasatoJ.ToddA.EsperanzaJ. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133–145. doi:10.1177/1098300709332067
18.
HudsonT. M.McKenzieR. G. (2016). Evaluating the use of RTI to identify SLD: A survey of state policy, procedures, data collection, and administrator perceptions. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 31–35. doi:10.1007/s40688-015-0081-7
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq. (2006).
20.
JacksonD.PierceJ. (2016). Implementing RTI with fidelity: Lessons learned and recommendations for success. Manuscript submitted for publication.
21.
JoyceB.ShowersB. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
22.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Implementing intensive intervention: Lessons learned from the field. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
23.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
O’DonnellC. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84. doi:10.3102/0034654307313793
ReinkeW. M.StormontM.HermanK. C.NewcomerL. (2014). Using coaching to support teacher implementation of classroom-based interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 150–167. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9186-0
28.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
29.
ShapiroE. (2015). Evaluating the impact of response to intervention in reading at the elementary level across the state of Pennsylvania. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 661–675). New York, NY: Springer.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256. doi:10.1177/0022219412442157
32.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070
33.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A. (2015). Special education research advances knowledge in education. Exceptional Children, 82, 11–24. doi:10.1177/0014402915598781
34.
WandersmanA.DuffyJ.FlaspohlerP.NoonanR.LubellK.StillmanL.BlachmanM.DunvilleR.SaulJ. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z
35.
WeiR. C.Darling-HammondL.AdamsonF. (2010). Professional development in the US: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
36.
ZumetaR.ZirkelP. A.DanielsonL. (2014). Identifying specific learning disabilities: Legislation, regulations, and court decisions. Topics in Language Disorders, 34, 8–24. doi:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000006
