IMPLEMENTING RTI EFFECTIVELY

Implementing RTI (Responsiveness to Intervention) effectively

Implementing RTI (Responsiveness to Intervention) effectively

Introduction

RtI cannot be characterized by one educational program or curriculum, but rather a transformation in the way that systems, schools, and professionals operate. As such, RtI represents a current educational change initiative. Aligned with directives called for within NCLB, as well as within provisions of the IDEIA of 2004, the application of RtI in schools has received legislative support. Unfortunately, research has suggested that even when supported by legislation, most educational change efforts result in limited implementation success (Berends, Bodilly, & Kirby, 2002), possibly due to the fact that programming decisions are based upon a top-down model of change. In fact, in an extensive study of comprehensive school reform prompted by NCLB, Vernez, Karam, Mariano, and DeMartini (2006) discovered that none of the 350 schools included in the study had fully implemented systemic change and student outcomes were less than optimal.

Are we implementing RTI (Responsiveness to Intervention) effectively?

Challenges inherent in educational reform, coupled with compelling needs to improve schools and research on how to promote change, demand that school improvement efforts develop and operate with shared meaning and responsibility. Schools must emphasize conditions that build capacity of both the system (school) and the individuals (educators) who work within the system. From this perspective, the fundamental ingredients necessary for educational change are improving relationships and increasing the skill set of all involved, rather than relying on top-down reform.

Presently, Sarason's (1995) analogy is likely resonating nationwide among administrators and practitioners in schools who are attempting to implement and sustain RtI practices. While some districts/schools appear to have solved many of the challenges of implementing RtI, others remain perplexed as to how to incorporate assessment and intervention practices into a systemic approach (see Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007 for a review of multiple implementation efforts across the country). Rather than continue with the status quo--namely partial or incomplete implementation of RtI with minimal prospect for sustainability, it is important for schools to begin exploring several questions that have the potential to improve how RtI is implemented. Three of these questions are as follows: What are the common barriers schools are facing when implementing RtI? Are there factors that promote or predict successful systemic change required to implement RtI? How can RtI become ingrained into school culture and maintained over time?

Due to the current dearth of research examining factors that may promote or inhibit successful implementation of RtI, it is useful to review prior theoretical models and efforts of educational change with the intent of informing future educational practice. Specifically, this review will examine Fullan's (1991, 2001, 2007) theoretical model as a framework through which to resolve problems in the implementation of RtI.

Although a myriad of theoretical models related to educational change exist (e.g., Professional Learning Community model, Learning Organization Model), Fullan's three-phase model of educational change has been formative in shaping educational change research and has provided direction to researchers, policymakers, and educators over multiple decades (Datnow, ...