What are educators' perceptions of the adoption and effectiveness of the Response to Intervention (RTI) model in their own schools? Over a three-year time span, the authors interviewed educators at an urban elementary school about their perceptions of an RTI model, tracking the model's development and the effectiveness of the implementation. The study was conducted through a university-school partnership that involved these elementary school educators from the initial planning through the implementation of the model while providing the professional development that was required to support the model. While the educators initially viewed the model as an administrative directive, they began to assume responsibility for the model's implementation during the second year as they considered themselves change agents and problem solvers for their school. During the third year, with continued administrative support and evidence of the model's effectiveness, participants engaged in the additional development and growth of the model and assumed responsibility for the model's sustainability as part of the school change process. Results suggest that RTI's collaborative structures, related professional development, and co-shared leadership supported the implementation process and contributed to the effectiveness of the model. Implications for practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AppleM. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequity.New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BatscheG., ElliotJ., GradenJ. L., GrimesJ., KovaleskiJ. F., PrasseD., ReschlyD. J., SchragJ., & TillyW.D.III (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation.Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
3.
BerlinerD. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
4.
ChristT. J., BurnsM. K., & YsseldykeJ. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences.NASP Communiqué, 34(1), 6–7.
5.
ClayM. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6.
Cochran-SmithM. (2006). Teacher education and the need for public intellectuals.The New Educator, 2, 1–26.
7.
Darling-HammondL. (2009). Teaching and the change wars: The professionalism hypothesis. In HargreavesA., & FullanM. (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 45–68). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
8.
DanielsonL., DoolittleJ., & BradleyR. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention implementation.School Psychology Review, 36(4), 6.
9.
DentonC., VaughnS., & FletcherJ. (2003). Bringing research-based practice to scale.Learning Disability Research and Practice, 15, 74–94.
10.
FletcherJ. M., & VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties.Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
11.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
12.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly,, 41(1), 93–99.
13.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (2007). RTI: How do you know it's working? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Seattle, Washington.
14.
FuchsD., MockD., MorganP., & YoungC. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 157–171.
15.
GoodR., & KaminskiR. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills.Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
16.
GreenfieldR., RinaldiC., ProctorP., & CardarelliA. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of RTI reform in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(2), 47–63.
17.
GreshamF. M. (2007). In ThomasA., & GrimesJ. (Eds.). Best practice in school psychology-V.Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
18.
HargreavesA., & ShirleyD. (2009). The fourth way: A new vision for education reform.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
HollenbeckA. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness to intervention research.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 137–146.
21.
JenkinsJ., O'ConnorR. E. (2001, August). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, DC.
22.
MandlawitzM. (2007). What every teacher should know about IDEA laws and regulations.Boston, MA: Pearson.
23.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
24.
NielsenD. C., BarryA. L., & StaabP. T. (2008). Teachers' reflections of professional change during a literacy-reform initiative.Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1288–1303.
25.
RinaldiC., & StuartS. K. (2009). Whole schooling and response to instruction.International Journal of Whole Schooling, 5(1), 41–58.
26.
ShirleyD., & HargreavesA. (2006). Data-driven to distraction.Education Week, 26(6), 32–33.
27.
Spear-SwerlingL. (2008). Response to intervention and teacher preparation. In GrigorenkoE. (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond (pp. 273–293). New York, NY: Springer.
28.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
SteckerP. M., LembkeE. S., & FoegenA. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision-making,Preventing School Failure,52(2), 48–58.
31.
StuartS. K., & RinaldiC. (2009). A collaborative planning framework for teachers implementing tiered instruction.Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(4), 52–57.
32.
StuartS. K., RinaldiC., & HigginsA. O. (2011). Agents of change: Voices of teachers on response to intervention.International Journal of Whole Schooling, 7(2), 53–73.
33.
U. S. Department of Education. (2001). P. L 107-110, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
34.
U. S. Department of Education. (2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Public Law 108-446.
35.
VanDerHeydenA. M., WittJ. C., & GilbertsonD. A. (2007). Multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education.Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
36.
VaughnS., & FuchsL. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146.
