Principals’ Decisions

Abstract

The reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 spurred sweeping changes for how special education students are identified in the United States. IDEA 2004 encourages schools to use Response to Intervention (RTI) as a new method for identifying special education students. As schools implement RTI, the principal becomes a key figure in determining the success of RTI. This study examines the policy ecology that influences principals’ views, beliefs, and considerations of RTI in determining the school plan for implementation. We find that implementation at the school level is distinguished by two types of implementation communities, what we term integrated or differentiated. Understanding the range of pressures and supports may inform district and school practitioners seeking to implement policy and policy makers as they consider the design of future policies.

Keywords

Response to Intervention multi-tiered supports principal school improvement policy implementation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Avolio

(2011). Full range leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Batsche

Elliott

Graden

J. L.

Grimes

Kovaleski

J. F.

Prasse

. . . Tilly

W. D.

(2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Buffum

A. G.

Mattos

Weber

(2012). Simplifying response to intervention: Four essential guiding principles. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Cobb

McClain

De Sliva Lambert

Dean

(2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24.

Coburn

C. E.

(2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.

Corcoran

Fuhrman

Belcher

C. H.

(2001). The district role in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 78-83.

Datnow

(2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 121-153.

Desimone

(2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479.

10.

Edmonds

M. S.

Vaughn

Wexler

Reutebuch

Cable

Tackett

Schnakenberg

(2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262-300.

11.

Elmore

R.F.

(2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Educational Press

12.

Flyvbjerg

(2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

13.

Gersten

Beckmann

Clarke

Foegen

Marsh

Star

J. R.

Witzel

(2009a). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

14.

Gersten

Compton

Connor

C. M.

Dimino

Santoro

Linan-Thompson

Tilly

W. D.

(2009b). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier 1 intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

15.

Gersten

Dimino

J. A.

(2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99-108.

16.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Transaction.

17.

Graves

Brandon

Duesbery

McIntosh

Pyle

(2011). The effects of Tier 2 literacy instruction in sixth grade: Toward the development of a response to intervention model in middle school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 73-86.

18.

Hall

S. L.

(2007). Implementing response to intervention: A principal’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

19.

Hannan

M. T.

Freeman

(1993). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

(2010). Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht, Springer.

21.

Harner-Gilworth

(2009). Response to intervention: Levels of implementation in northwest Indiana. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAI3344719)

22.

Honig

(2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in educational policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.

23.

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

24.

Kosteck

K. M.

(2014). Rti’s implementation and collaborative systems between general and special education in two middle schools. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAI3538802)

25.

Marks

H. M.

Printy

S. M.

(2003). Principal leadership and school performance: Integrating transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.

26.

Michigan Department of Education. (2006). Leading educational reform for today’s global society: State of Michigan educational technology plan. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/STP2006_5-10-06c_158945_7.pdf

27.

Michigan Department of Education. (2012). Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi). Available from http://miblsi.cenmi.org/

28.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Moore-Brown

B. M.

Bielinski

(2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Teaching before testing helps avoid labeling. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 148-167.

30.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2011). RTI scheduling process for middle schools. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention, U.S. Department of Education.

31.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2012). RTI State Database. http://rti.pearsoned.com/docs/RTIsite/2010RTIAdoptionSurveyReport.pdf .

32.

Nugent

S. S.

(2012). Educator’s perceptions of the implementation and effectiveness of response to intervention measures. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAI3534291)

33.

Ochieng-Sande

(2013). Response to intervention: An interpretative case study of educators’ perspectives on the roles of school culture, personal beliefs, and program knowledge on implementation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAI 3593129)

34.

Printy

S. M.

Marks

H. M.

Bowers

(2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 504-532.

35.

Raghavan

Bright

Shadoin

(2008). Towards a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implementation Science, 3, Article 26.

36.

Scammacca

Roberts

Vaughn

Edmonds

Wexler

Reutebuch

Torgesen

(2007). Interventions for struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

37.

Schneider

Ingram

(1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52, 510-529.

38.

Shapiro

E. S.

Zigmond

Wallace

Marston

(2011). Models for implementing response to intervention: Tools, outcomes, and implications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Shirley

T. S.

(2012). Response to intervention (RTI) self-efficacy among elementary and middle school general education teachers. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3505412)

40.

Spectrum K12 School Solutions. (2011). Response to intervention (RTI) adoption survey 2011 (Global Scholar). Available from www.spectrumk12.com

41.

Spiller

(2014). The relationship among professional learning communities, a response to intervention framework and mathematics scores in middle and high schools. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 3562462)

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities: Final rule part II. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/14/2013-03443/assistance-to-states-for-the-education-of-children-with-disabilities

43.

Vaughn

Fletcher

(2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244-256.

44.

Weaver-Hightower

M. B.

(2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37, 153-167.

45.

Zahedi

K. J.

(2010). Middle school teacher satisfaction with response to intervention (RTI): An assessment between inception and implementation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAI 3402684)