For this Assignment, you will select a gap identified in Module 2 with RtI, PBIS, or MTSS. Referencing the Learning Resources and research conducted on each state, support your rationale as to why add

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21598

DISTRICT-LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORTING AND SUSTAINING RTI

IMPLEMENTATION

EDWARD P. O’CONNOR AND ELIZABETH WITTER FREEMAN

Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (miLc)

Although Response to Intervention (RtI) implementation efforts have been occurring in schools

across the country for more than a decade, questions and concerns are emerging, as some schools

are not observing signi cantly improved student achievement or behavior outcomes as expected.

In the literature on RtI implementation, most authors indicate there are multiple levels of support

that are required for effective RtI implementation. These include individual professional develop-

ment regarding the rationale for RtI and for developing necessary skills; building-level support

encompassing necessary resources, leadership, and structures that promote RtI; and district-level

support to drive the broader system. In this article, we identify district-level supports that are

important for school psychologists to consider as they work to initiate or extend RtI routines. The

district-level factors discussed here are organized into the categories of leadership, assessment and

data management, culture and beliefs, professional development, staff recruitment, and resource

allocation.

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Response to Intervention (RtI) implementation efforts have been occurring at some level in

most school districts across the country, with some schools having started these efforts a decade ago

or more. As the efforts at restructuring and reforming service delivery around the RtI framework have

evolved, many questions and concerns are beginning to emerge regarding these efforts. Although

some schools have achieved exceptional results through RtI implementation (e.g., Vail School

District, AZ, VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005; Minneapolis Public Schools, Heartland, 2005; Marston,

Muyskes, Lau, & Canter, 2002), many are having dif culty in determining what, if anything, has

changed. In our work with schools across the Midwest, we have encountered many school districts

that have made a commitment to implementing RtI systems but are still having dif culty gaining

momentum for these efforts. Many schools have established RtI structures and are collecting a great

deal of data related to student learning outcomes, but are not realizing signi cantly improved student

achievement or behavior outcomes. The following quote supports our observation: “The effect sizes

reported for research studies of RtI are less consistent than many of its supporters profess and those

studies reporting strong results are highly likely to have levels of treatment delity that are atypical”

(Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009, p. 131).

In other words, many schools/districts seem to have gotten on the RtI highway in the past

decade, but not all are making progress toward the destination of improving student outcomes. A

few schools seem to have found the “fast lane” and are on cruise control, but some schools are feeling

lost. Further, some schools are looking for the next exit, as they are tiring of the journey, and some

are on the side of the road with a at tire. In many situations where schools are struggling to initiate

or sustain momentum for their RtI efforts, we observe there is not a coherent support structure built

at the more macro level of the school system—the district level.

The school psychology literature contains an immense amount of information regarding the

RtI framework and speci c technical aspects, but has discussed system-level structures much less

frequently. Certainly, it is critical for school psychologists to understand the RtI framework and the

technical components to support RtI implementation, but acting on this knowledge alone does not

seem to be suf cient to produce substantial and sustainable change in many settings.We believe that

Correspondence to: Elizabeth Witter Freeman, Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (miLc), P.O. Box 1106,

Sun Prairie, WI 53590. E-mail: [email protected]

297 298O’Connor and Freeman

school psychologists also need to consider several system-level factors that affect RtI scale up and

sustainability to maximize the effect on students and increase the probability of sustainability.

This article outlines critical system-level structures that are often overlooked or ignored by

school psychologists and others working to develop RtI initiatives or to extend and sustain existing

initiatives. Although school psychologists may not have direct control of these system factors, the

knowledge and skills of school psychologists can in uence these factors nevertheless. In fact, it is our

observation that many of the schools and districts that have made substantial progress in establishing

RtI initiatives have done so because of substantial support and direct system-level actions taken

by school psychologists in those settings. Thus, one of the objectives of this article is to provide

information to psychologists about critical district-level factors to consider in planning support for

RtI initiatives.

D

EFINITIONAL ISSUES

Because this article de nes critical district support structures for implementing RtI, it is impor-

tant that we establish, at the outset, the de nition of RtI that guides this work. For this discussion, we

adopt the de nition of RtI presented by Burns and VanDerHeyden (2006): “RtI is the systematic use

of assessment data to most ef ciently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all children”

(p. 3). We choose this de nition over others because it can be applied equally well to an analysis

of district systems as well as building systems and even to individual student decisions. Further,

this de nition focuses speci cally on the key roles of data, allocation of resources, and student

learning outcomes. Clearly, these issues are among those impacted by district-level decisions and

actions. Finally, we adopt this de nition because it recognizes RtI as a framework for the enhance-

ment of learning for all children, not just those who are struggling or have certain demographic

characteristics.

It is also important to note that we view RtI at the system level to be related closely with the

concept of “continuous school improvement.” The term continuous school improvement has recently

emerged in the education literature to describe a process of strategic planning and frequent review

of effectiveness at the broadest levels of the system (Conyers & Ewy, 2004; Schmoker, 1999). In

many ways, this concept of continuous improvement re ects the application of RtI principles to

district-level decision-making procedures. Bernhardt and Hebert (2011) de ne continuous school

improvement as the process of improving the school organization on an ongoing basis that includes

using data to de ne the current status of the system and establish system goals, analyzing causes for

current status, planning system actions to achieve goals, and evaluating results routinely to guide

system decisions. These authors state:

Until you get continuous school improvement right, you cannot get RtI right. If you do continuous school

improvement right, you will have a good start toward an effective RtI system. If you do RtI right, you will

be engaged in a continuous school improvement process. (Bernhardt & Herbert, 2011, p. 1)

As others have observed, continuous school improvement is the process of “using RtI to do RtI” (D.

Tilly, personal communication, October 8, 2010).

We agree with the premise that systematic decision making and continuous progress evaluation

are important for improving schools broadly, and we see the concepts of continuous school im-

provement or RtI thinking applied at the district level as critically important to promoting effective

RtI efforts throughout the school system. Moreover, we observe that RtI implementation requires

a signi cant educational reform, including changes in the way we think and act at all levels of the

system. Inherent in this view is the recognition that RtI is not a program or an initiative, but rather a

process that is incorporated throughout a district to drive all educational decisions. Therefore, it is

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits District Considerations for RtI Implementation299

our assertion that effective implementation of RtI has to consider the school district entity, as well

as school buildings, as units of change.

Consideration and evaluation of district-level structures and supports for RtI implementation are

important, regardless of where a school district is in its developmental path toward implementation

of RtI systems. Whether individual schools are just beginning to learn about RtI frameworks or

are working to sustain successful implementation efforts, the quality of coordination and support

provided by district-level staff and the procedural structures in place will have a large in uence

on the eventual or ongoing success achieved by the individual schools. Without this understanding

and conceptual support from the district level, many school improvement efforts lose momentum

and eventually fade. Without effective district coordination and decision making, RtI efforts tend

to become fragmented and unfocused, and thereby unsustainable. Much has been written already

about some of the important district-level structures and supports, including the factors relating to

professional development, communication mechanisms, and goal setting (Harlacher & Siler, 2011;

Miller & Kraft, 2008; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006; Schmoker, 1999). In our work with more than 20

school districts across the Midwest, we have observed key district-level factors that are associated

with successful and sustainable RtI efforts. The structures we observe and discuss here are consistent

with those identi ed in the literature on “highly effective schools” (Bell, 2001; Levine & Lezotte,

1990; Reeves, 1999; Togneri, 2003). This article will focus on ve of these critical issues, including

(a) assessment and data management, (b) culture and beliefs, (c) staff recruitment, (d) resource

allocation, and (e) leadership. We include a discussion on leadership (despite the fact that it has

already been discussed widely in the literature) because this is commonly identi ed by school

personnel and researchers (e.g., Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) as the most important factor

for effective school improvement. The sections that follow will provide details of each of these

characteristics and will outline the impact of these on effective RtI implementation.

L

EADERSHIP

Leadership is among the most important factors to the success of any change effort (Fullan,

2010). Discussions with staff from any school system engaged in RtI implementation will nd a

large majority of staff who report that leadership (or lack thereof) has been a substantial in uence

leading to success or failure of their implementation efforts. In our work, we have surveyed more

than 700 school staff members from multiple schools and have found that only 11% “strongly agree”

with the statement: “In our district/school, district level leadership provides active commitment and

support for school improvement actions (e.g., meets to review data and issues at least twice each

year).” Further, we found that nearly 50% of school staff we have surveyed “disagree” or “strongly

disagree” with this statement. This is cause for concern if one agrees that RtI processes require

substantial system change. Clearly, it will be dif cult to make progress or sustain the change effort

without support and involvement of those who are driving the bus.

Successful, ef cient, and effective RtI systems require district-level leadership and support.

Although bottom-up efforts at the individual building level can go quite far, explicit support from

the district-level administration is clearly a necessary factor. We observe that many well-developed

building efforts falter without effective district leadership. The concept of leadership as it is discussed

here includes leadership actions from district administrators and established leadership teams, but

also leadership functions served by other staff and stakeholder groups, as well as school board

members.

Based on our experience, we have concluded that there are three main factors associated

with district-level leadership that serve to promote effective and sustainable RtI systems: leaders’

knowledge of RtI principles and practices, leadership structures, and organizational frameworks.

Each of these components will be discussed separately in the following sections.

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 300O’Connor and Freeman

Leadership Knowledge

Obviously, it is necessary for all individuals in a district to have knowledge of RtI principles

and a common language, as well as a shared understanding of the rationale for the effort for these

initiatives to become established in a meaningful way (Batsche et. al., 2005). This is especially

important for those whose decisions and actions affect the entire school system. Although there

is some variability in who makes decisions between different educational systems, district leaders

always have substantial control to make, or in uence heavily, decisions that will impact student

learning in all district buildings. Thus, it is surprising how frequently we observe settings where

district leaders have only limited knowledge of RtI concepts and limited awareness of implementation

actions or results. As discussed earlier, school staff surveyed regarding district leaders’ engagement

in RtI initiatives frequently indicated little or no involvement of district leaders. In our opinion, this

is not because district leaders are resistant to or inherently unsupportive of these actions, but rather,

usually because district infrastructure does not include the routine analysis of instructional practices

or instructional outcomes by district leaders.

It appears that it is common that planning of instructional initiatives does not include district-

level leaders. Many district leaders have schedules that are extremely full; thus, it is challenging

to coordinate efforts that involve these individuals in the process. Therefore, it is often just easier

to initiate actions without bringing the district leadership along from the beginning. Despite this

challenge, we advise RtI implementers to educate and engage district leaders deliberately in the

entire scale-up process to maximize the probability of gaining momentum and sustaining these

efforts for the long term. This will likely result in a slower scale-up process or will cause the slowing

of existing efforts, but without attention to developing leadership at the broadest levels, the RtI

initiatives will be dif cult, if not impossible, to sustain.

Speci cally, district leaders will need to have knowledge of the conceptual framework of RtI, the

basic principles, and the rationale for a systematic and data-based process for decision making that

allows for clear and speci c support for RtI to be communicated. We have observed many districts

that have expended considerable time and resources in establishing RtI processes and infrastructure

at the building level, only to have these efforts falter because of the decisions and actions of district

leaders unfamiliar with or unaware of basic RtI concepts and principles. Typically, when district

leaders are not speci cally involved in RtI efforts, they are involved in planning and promoting other

actions intended to improve district outcomes. In these districts, we often see multiple initiatives

and plans that compete for attention and resources, none of which can establish momentum for long

enough to achieve results. Without district leadership that is knowledgeable, aware, and, to some

degree, involved in RtI scale-up activities, sustainable RtI efforts are not likely to occur.

As an example, one of the important tenets of RtI practices is the use of evidence-based

instructional techniques and intervention practices. If there are not individuals with leadership

roles at the district level who understand this concept and support it, decisions about instructional

programming generally are deferred to local “experts” who are perceived as credible on the basis

of their role, title, or years of service. Frequently, these decisions made by the local “experts” are

biased by personal experience and professional judgments, as opposed to using high-quality evidence

from research. Unless district leaders are able to establish an expectation that recommendations for

instructional programming be accompanied by the supporting research, education will continue to

demonstrate a strong tendency to “chase every shiny thing” that comes their way. Therefore, it is

important that district leaders have knowledge of the importance of using evidence-based practices

and what constitutes an evidence base. In our work with districts, we ask district leaders to discuss

the research on which they have based their decisions regardinginstructional programming and

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits District Considerations for RtI Implementation301

materials. As one might guess, very few are able to answer this question. Perhaps the best answer

we frequently receive is, “That is averygood question!”

It is worth noting that in addition to cultivating RtI knowledge among district leadership, it is

also necessary to embrace a process of continually updating knowledge. Evidence-based practices

and interventions are continually evolving as new scienti c knowledge becomes available. Therefore,

district leadership needs to not only understand the need to consider evidence from research, but

also to be aware of the dynamic nature of evidence-based practice. This requires that districts

instill appropriate structures to continually consume information from the professional and research

community.

Leadership Structures

Leadership structures include the routines and processes that exist at the district level that guide

district decisions. In some districts, these routines are rather informal and are based on casual input

and the authority of a few individuals. For data-based processes such as RtI to be effective at the

individual building level, the district must establish and sustain routines for decision making that

incorporate data from building-level efforts and follow a systematic process that includes routine

evaluation of progress on district objectives (Bernhardt, 2006, Bernhardt & Hebert, 2011). In our

work, we ask building- and district-level staff to describe how decisions are made in their district.

The answers to this question are often very different from site to site and at the district level.

Moreover, it is common for staff, including teachers and administrators to report that they really

do not know about the process that guides decisions in their district. Without clear leadership

structures and routines to guide analysis of effectiveness, provide speci c routines for decision

making, and explicit communication about these routines, actions become haphazard and random.

In these settings, actions are perceived to begin and end without explanation. Under these conditions,

staff adopt a “this-too-shall-pass” attitude toward improvement initiatives. In these environments,

staff members become disengaged from the process and feel free to choose whatever actions make

the most sense to them.

Regardless of the speci c structure of district leadership in each district, it is important to

recognize that a main role of district-level administrators is to facilitate the development of clear

outcome targets and to establish routines that support the efforts of each building. As previously

discussed, RtI efforts are best conceptualized and evaluated at the individual building level. Therefore,

there is a ne balance between district level coordination and support of these heterogeneous efforts

and the stymieing effect of micromanagement. The most successful schools we have observed

have district leaders that are knowledgeable and supportive of RtI implementation, but do not try

to control the process. Rather, in these settings, there are systematic and deliberate routines for

decision making that incorporate research evidence, local data, and professional expertise. Through

the support and maintenance of these procedures, leaders in districts successfully implementing

RtI systems con dently allow the process to guide the decisions rather than imposing individual

authority. Additionally, personnel at the district level are able to contribute to RtI by coordinating

efforts across buildings as needed, sharing resources, and assisting with data and assessment needs.

Organizational Framework

Whether you call it culture, values, ethos, or mission, district leadership has to not only embrace

the ideas and principles underlying RtI (e.g., that all students can learn) but also an organizational

framework to coordinate and communicate the emphasis on systemic excellence (Fullan, 2006). Or-

ganizational frameworks, whether developed internally or adopted from an external source, provide

clear descriptions of the important processes and decision-making structures that exist. In addition,

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 302O’Connor and Freeman

these tools describe the relationships among these factors, which must be considered in assessing

outcomes and progress toward identi ed goals.

Such an organizational framework allows for continuous system improvement by de ning

the processes for goal setting, analysis of needs, evaluation of progress, and revision as needed,

regardless of the speci c movement being embedded. In its essence, an organizational framework

depicts how the problem-solving process applies to the school system. This type of a process is

crucial, as a responsive data-based decision-making system cannot be reduced to a manualized set

of actions. In this “thinking is required” model of RtI we believe it is necessary to have a leadership

culture that embraces a framework for organizing its efforts.

Although there is a plethora of organization frameworks that may be useful to consider as

examples, we have encountered two speci c models that districts have used successfully as a starting

point for guiding their thinking and planning related to RtI implementation. First, the systems change

model for RtI (Curtis, Cohen, & Castillo, 2006) de nes three broad stages of the change process

that in uence efforts to scale up RtI systems. These three stages are labeled:consensus building,

infrastructure development, andimplementation. To these we have addedsustainabilityto re ect

the need for deliberate strategies for generalizing and maintaining RtI systems. Districts seeking to

scale up or improve their RtI processes nd it helpful to de ne their actions within these stages and

to consider their results with respect to this model in determining which actions are needed to move

forward toward higher levels of implementation.

A second framework that is emerging as a model to guide district improvement efforts related

to RtI has been described by Wallace, Blase, Fixsen, and Naoom (2008). This framework identi ed

the roles and structures necessary for implementing research ndings in educational practice. This

model includes de nitions of the processes and stages of implementation as well as the roles of

support necessary for effective implementation. Readers interested in additional information on this

model are directed to visit the very informative National Implementation Research Network Web

site at http://www.fpg.unc.edu/∼nirn/.

District leaders may be inclined to avoid the process of de ning their system with the aid of

these organizing frameworks because of strong pressure to take action. However, without clearly

articulated guiding frameworks for implementation, many districts become lost and confused when it

is discovered they are not making progress toward their desired outcomes. Without a “roadmap” for

the system, it is easy for district leadership to become overwhelmed or disjointed in their efforts. We

recommend that districts at all stages of RtI implementation identify relevant organizing frameworks

to guide their RtI implementation because we have observed that it is extremely challenging to

effectively assess, organize, guide, evaluate, and update different and complex efforts occurring

across multiple school sites without a model to organize these actions.

C

OORDINATION OF ASSESSMENT AND DATA MANAGEMENT

Effective use of student outcome data is the foundation on which RtI systems are built. One of the

biggest challenges for schools trying to implement RtI frameworks is the establishment of effective

assessment procedures and developing staff skills for using data to drive instructional decisions

(VanDerHeyden & Tilly, 2011). Through no fault of their own, teachers and other staff typically

do not have suf cient training and experience in assessment techniques, concepts of measurement,

or interpreting data to be effective in using data for instruction. Therefore, a critical component

of district-level support is to identify or select individuals with expertise in these areas to provide

coaching and support for all staff. Although general professional development activities, such as staff

inservices or conference attendance, can increase knowledge in this area, these “one and done” efforts

are not suf cient to support the depth of knowledge and procedural skills needed for effective use of

data to guide instruction. In addition to these general support activities, effective RtI implementers

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits District Considerations for RtI Implementation303

provide ongoing training and support through the use of coaches that are embedded within the

system. Often, individual coaches are psychologists at the building level who are supported by a

coordinator at the district level.

The staff responsible for coordinating these coaching efforts are charged with ensuring that

assessment routines can be integrated across grade levels and buildings within the district so that a

coherent picture can be developed regarding program effects and individual student performance.

Without effective data management and analysis, even the best assessment data will not be useful

to those trying to make educational decisions. Districts demonstrating successful RtI processes

have recognized the need for the coordination of assessment procedures, data management, and

staff development in basic measurement concepts, interpretation of data, and data-based decision

making (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). To address these needs requires that one or more individuals

be given the responsibility for coordinating and carrying out these activities. Many larger districts

have established a position at the district-level that serves this role; other districts have incorporated

these responsibilities within existing district level staff roles. Regardless, the assignment of these

roles and the provision of adequate time for those assigned to accomplish these tasks should be

prioritized by district leaders wishing to establish RtI systems for their schools.

One of the important tasks for district-level staff who are assigned to the coordination of

assessment and data management is to develop a clear and coherent assessment framework that

identi es the purposes of the assessments used and connect these assessments to decision-making

processes in the district. It is crucial that these assessment frameworks be based on credible research

supporting the tools and procedures selected. Therefore, persons assigned this responsibility must

be well versed in the assessment research literature.

An assessment framework is needed to establish a clear articulation of the assessment procedures

deployed in terms of their purpose and placement within the decision-making routine. Without a

well-articulated assessment framework, assessment systems become random and haphazard. When

this occurs, there is great variability in the form and function of assessments that generates confusion

or con ict. In districts without a clearly articulated assessment framework, we often observe that a

great (often too great) amount of data is being collected, but staff are unable to make sense of the

data or use it for instructional decision making. Examples of tools for outlining a district assessment

framework can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.

Beyond de ning and managing the assessment process and coordinating the production of

summary data reports for teachers, a district-level coordinator can also serve a critical role in com-

munication across the district. Although a certain amount of building-level autonomy is necessary

for establishing RtI structures to t each building context, it is also important that there is coherence

across the district. The district-level coordinator needs to structure the role to allow participation on

a regular basis with building-level leadership teams. In this way, the coordinator becomes a conduit

for information from the district level and also across buildings.

A third important role for the individual responsible for district-level data management and

coordination is that of producing summary reports from the data collected. These summary reports

must be accessible to teachers and building teams in a timely manner so that decisions can be made

using relevant data about student performance. The task of integrating data into summary formats,

including visual representations, can be aided by database tools associated with the various assess-

ments selected, but it is typically necessary for someone to integrate information from these various

data sources into simple summary reports for considering aggregate outcomes and disaggregated

results across different subgroups.

Finally, district coordination of data review activities at the building and district levels is

needed to promote effective data interpretation. Annual routines for reviewing district outcomes

across buildings and discussions regarding the implications for planning are important activities that

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 304O’Connor and Freeman

FIGURE 1. Assessment framework matrix. Long-Term (L-T)=XX.

promote communication and coordination across the buildings in a district. These annual reviews

with selected building-level leaders promote awareness and learning across settings within the

district. Without district-level coordination of these activities, including involvement in building-

level planning and data reviews as well as district-wide review activities, RtI efforts are sporadic and

can develop in ways that become counterproductive in the scope of the larger system.

C

ULTURE AND BELIEFS

Perhaps one of the most overlooked factors affecting RtI implementation is the role of culture

and beliefs that exist in a school or district (Kruse & Seashore Louis, 2009). The prevailing attitudes

and beliefs of staff in a district, as well as the historical traditions and values that have evolved in

each district, have a strong in uence on the behaviors of staff and students alike. Others have framed

these issues within the concept of consensus building (Kurns & Tilly, 2008). However, one labels it,

the in uence of the prevailing culture and beliefs that exist should not be overlooked as RtI systems

are developing or when RtI efforts become stalled.

In our work, we have developed a staff survey adapted from the Self-Assessment of Problem

Solving Implementation used in Florida schools (Castillo et al., 2010). This survey includes questions

related to both beliefs and practices. One of the most consistent ndings we have observed in

reviewing responses from over 600 educators is that a surprisingly large number of individuals

disagree with statements about the capacity of all students to achieve grade level benchmark skills

(see Figure 3). One of the foundational beliefs necessary to support RtI implementation is that “we

can effectively teach all children” (National Association of Directors of Special Education, 2005,

p. 19). Furthermore, most districts incorporate a similar statement about the capacity of all children

to learn in their mission and vision statements. However, our data indicate that a large number of

educators may not believe that it is possible for all children to achieve speci c learning targets. For

those who do not believe this, the premise of RtI becomes nothing more than another platitude. In

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits District Considerations for RtI Implementation305

Summative Assessment Data

Goals – District – Building – Grade – Student

FIGURE 2. District assessment framework. Opportunities for Improvement (OFI)=XX.

districts where RtI has been well established and effective, staff believe that a systematic analysis of

student responses to high-quality interventions will eventually yield information that can be used to

close observed skill de cits. For those without this belief, participation in progressive intervention,

data analysis, and problem solving will have a considerable likelihood of being marked by limited

integrity and persistence of effort. As the implementation of RtI practices becomes more dif cult, it

may not seem worth the effort if there is a belief that “this student” or “these students” simply do

not have the capacity for achieving the same learning targets as their peers.

To address this issue, we recommend structured opportunities to discuss these beliefs and the

implications of these for engagement in the RtI process. An activity that can be helpful in this regard

is to have staff anonymously record the percent of students who they believe can achieve grade-level

learning targets and then to represent these graphically. This visual then can serve as a starting

point for exploration of the sources of these beliefs and provide a rich discussion among those

who endorse the capacity of all or nearly all to achieve established learning targets and those who

believe that substantially fewer than 100% can make it. These discussions will often reveal several

biases that can be addressed with evidence that challenges these biases. For example, some staff

might identify that students from impoverished environments often have dif culties in achieving

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 306O’Connor and Freeman

FIGURE 3. Staff beliefs about students’ achievement potential. DK=don’t know.

benchmark goals. Information from schools such as the “90-90-90” schools, where 90% of students

are receiving free and reduced lunch, 90% of students are minority, and 90% or more are achieving

grade-level benchmarks (Reeves, 2003) is useful for challenging these biases. More powerful yet are

local examples of successful skill development among students or groups that typically do not meet

learning targets. In more than one school where RtI systems have been successfully established,

we have heard teachers exclaim that “we believe all students can achieve grade-level skill targets

because we have seen it happen in our own school.”

Without attention to the fundamental culture and beliefs that exist among district and building

staff, along with the actions to address mismatches between RtI principles and prevailing beliefs,

RtI efforts will falter. Districts where this occurs may have established the structures and tools

associated with RtI and thus report that they are “doing RtI.” but in reality these settings have

achieved compliance in using RtI tools and routines, but the culture and beliefs have not changed.

These are systems that nd many staff continuing to focus on the process of identi cation and

classi cation of students into different silos for “services” and not on the quality or impact of the

services that are being delivered.

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits District Considerations for RtI Implementation307

S

TA F F RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION

The topic of staff recruitment is another often overlooked function that can play a substantial

role in the establishment of effective and sustainable RtI systems. Clearly, no school or district can

effectively implement RtI systems unless staff have the background knowledge and skills needed

for these efforts. Successful organizations in any industry place heavy emphasis on selecting staff

that possess the necessary skills and attitudes to perform at a high level (Collins, 2001). However, in

many education settings, it is startling to observe that staff recruitment and selection procedures very

often continue to follow routines that do not emphasize the selection of staff with the skills necessary

for working in an RtI system. In addition, many of the pre-service programs where educators receive

training have not incorporated instruction of RtI concepts and skills into their curricula. As a result,

schools attempting to scale up RtI initiatives nd themselves having to invest a great deal of time

and money in providing staff with the essential knowledge and skills to be effective in these systems.

Although individual building administrators may have some autonomy in developing the pro-

cedures for staff recruitment and selection, district-driven guidelines about these procedures can

have a substantial impact on improving these routines. Districts demonstrating the most effective

application of RtI systems have established clear and deliberate priorities for the recruitment and

selection of new staff (Ikeda et. al., 2007). In these systems, there is an awareness of the training

programs and experiences that promote the knowledge and skills necessary for participating in RtI

systems. Often, there is also a deliberate attempt made to develop relationships with these programs

to facilitate recruitment of students with these skills.

In addition to recruitment practices, districts with effective RtI systems tend to have embedded

in their selection process clear and speci c pro les of the skills they are looking for in potential

candidates for hire. Further, the interview processes in these districts contain very speci c questions

and performance tasks that target speci c knowledge and skills that have been identi ed as priorities

for the particular RtI system. Although there are some schools that have unintentionally assembled

highly skilled and well-trained staff, these happenstance occurrences are rare. For districts with a true

desire to build effective and sustainable models, deliberate and speci c routines for staff recruitment

and selection will need to be developed and deployed.

R

ESOURCE ALLOCATION

Many districts overlook policies and procedures related to resource allocation when evaluating

district supports for RtI implementation. Issues of resource allocation for this discussion are not

only about the distribution of nancial resources, but RtI systems additionally require careful

consideration of how time and staff resources are arranged. For RtI initiatives to be sustained over

time, mechanisms to ensure adequate resource support from the district are needed. This is especially

true in circumstances where resources are limited and new practices may be seen as unnecessary.

With the recent economic slowdown in the United States, the allocation of nancial resources

has received a great deal of attention. As budgets have become increasingly tight for most districts,

the need for deliberate consideration of the impact of resource allocation decisions has become even

more important to consider. In response to nancial challenges, we have observed many districts

struggle to determine how to make decisions regarding the distribution of reduced nancial resources

and ultimately what programs or services to cut to balance budgets.

As discussed earlier, many districts have evolved RtI practices from the building-level without

much coordination or even awareness at the district level. As a result, there is a tendency to perceive

staf ng allocations or training resources associated with RtI implementation as good candidates for

reduction. These recommendations surface because there is little broad awareness of the purpose

and impact of RtI initiatives. To avoid this circumstance, RtI implementers need to establish clear

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 308O’Connor and Freeman

and explicit links between RtI actions and district strategic plans or goals. In addition, frequent

and speci c communication with decision makers regarding outcomes associated with RtI practices

needs to occur. Truly, a fully realized RtI framework of service delivery has personnel that are

integrated into the system and are therefore indispensable.

To promote sustainability, district procedures for making decisions regarding resource allocation

must include careful evaluation of impacts of resource decisions on student outcomes. All too often,

when reductions in programs or services are necessary, the process for determining what to cut

and what to sustain becomes disconnected from information available regarding how initiatives like

RtI impact student outcomes. In these situations, it is common for the determination to be made

that budgets will be cut equally across programs or departments. In contrast, districts that have

recognized the impact of RtI structures and practices prioritize continued support for RtI actions

that have explicitly demonstrated positive impacts on student outcomes (Holliday & Clarke, 2010).

Thus, the impact of budget reductions on RtI implementation is often minimized.

Additionally, data that are collected as part of the RtI system allows for more informed decisions

about which instruction and intervention programs to continue versus which to discontinue. This is

especially helpful during budget cuts, as more informed decisions can be made to maintain programs

that have actual or greater impact on students.

Another resource allocation issue that often arises has to do with the allocation of time or staff

to RtI activities. The implementation of RtI frameworks often requires substantial adjustments in

schedules and sometimes requires that students participating in intervention activities will not be

able to participate in other instructional activities. Staff may also have to spend time in intervention

delivery that would traditionally been spent doing other things. This reallocation of schedule time

and staff time can be dif cult for some staff and some stakeholders. Therefore, questions will arise

regarding the rationale for these decisions. It will often be necessary for district-level support to be

provided for these resource allocations in the face of resistance and concerns about doing things

differently. In districts that have established a focus on student outcomes with a well-communicated

and coordinated process for resource allocation, these issues do not become obstacles. In districts

without these decision-making mechanisms, resource allocation challenges can limit or completely

inhibit the effective implementation of these RtI structures.

S

UMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

This article provides information to those leading RtI efforts in schools, districts, state depart-

ments, and universities. It is essential that the aforementioned district-level factors be considered to

promote more effective RtI implementation and sustainability into the future. It is hoped that the

content provided here will provide a basis for further discussion and analysis of these district-level

support factors for those wanting to enhance or re-energize their RtI efforts.

Regardless of their role in a particular district, school psychologists are critical in furthering RtI

effectiveness by engaging at the district level. They possess critical knowledge regarding measure-

ment, data interpretation, and data management. This knowledge places school psychologists in a

position to in uence the development of these district-level structures through education, modeling,

and advocacy with those in leadership positions at the district level.

Frequently, school psychologists will be tapped to ll district-level roles responsible for devel-

oping assessment frameworks, coordinating the delivery of assessments, and managing data to be

used for RtI. Often, these activities must be demonstrated as useful before administrators will be

willing to make the investments that are required to support these positions. Therefore, school psy-

chologists should be prepared to structure their activities to include time for assisting district-level

staff in developing the structures that are needed to support effective RtI implementation.

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits District Considerations for RtI Implementation309

Through careful consideration at the district level, one can ensure that RtI efforts can be

maintained in years to come. By weaving the tenets of RtI into the philosophy, mission, and goals of

a district, consensus is created, and the operating culture of the district will sustain practices aligned

with RtI. Through systematic critique and revision of district policy, procedures, and practices, the

probability that the system will continue to make data-based decisions that improve outcomes for

all students, regardless of the individuals in leadership roles, is substantially improved.

R

EFERENCES

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski., J., Prasse., D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy

considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education Inc.

Bell, J. (2001). High-performing, high-poverty schools. Leadership, 31(1), 8 – 11. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from Education

Full Text database.

Bernhardt, V. L. (2006). Using student data to improve student learning in school districts. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Bernhardt, V. L., & Hebert, C. L. (2011). Response to intervention (RTI) and continuous school improvement (CSI): Using

data, vision, and leadership to design, implement, and evaluate a schoolwide prevention system. Larchmont, NY: Eye

on Education.

Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Special series: Using response to intervention as a diagnostic tool for learning

disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3 – 5.

Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., & Minch, D. (2010). Problem solving/response to

intervention evaluation tool technical assistance manual. Tampa, FL: Florida Department of Education and the University

of South Florida.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap. . . and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins.

Conyers, J. G., & Ewy, R. (2004). Charting your course: Lessons learned during the journey toward performance excellence.

Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.

Curtis, M. J., Cohen, R., & Castillo, J. M. (2009). Facilitating implementation of PS/RTI using systems change

principles [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http:// oridarti.usf.edu/resources/presentations/2009/CurtisNASP2009/

Half%20Day%20Workshop

FINAL.ppt

Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harlacher, J. E., & Siler, C. F. (2011). Factors related to successful RTI implementation. NASP Communiqu´

e, 39, 20 – 22.

Heartland. (2005). Heartland AEA 11 annual progress report. Retrieved on September 25, 2011, from www.aea.11.k12.ia.us/

downloads/2005apr.pdf

Holliday, T., & Clark, B. (2010). Running all the red lights: A journey of system-wide educational reform. Milwaukee, WI:

ASQ.

Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B. C., Gustafson, J. K., Allison, R., & Stumme, J. (2007). The Heartland Area

Education Agency 11 problem-solving approach: An overview and lessons learned. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, &

A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 255 – 268). New York: Springer.

Kruse, S. D., & Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Kurns, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Response to intervention blueprints for implementation: School-level edition. Alexandria,

VA: National Association of State Directors of Education.

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison,

WI: The National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.

Marston, D., Muyskes, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high incidence

disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187 – 200.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research top results. Alexandria,

VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Miller, D. D., & Kraft, N. P. (2008). Best practices in communicating with and involving parents. In A. Thomas & J.

Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 937 – 951). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists.

National Association of Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and imple-

mentation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

O’Neill, J., & Conzemius, A. (2006). The power of SMART goals: Using goals to improve student learning. Bloomington,

IN: Solution Tree. Reeves, D. B. (1999). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO:

Center for Performance Assessment.

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits 310O’Connor and Freeman

Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. Englewood, CO: Center for Perfor-

mance Assessment. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%

2090%20and%20beyond.pdf

Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail.

School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130 – 145.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and

achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement

to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for

Effective Intervention, 30, 15 – 31.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Tilly, D. W. (2011). Keeping RTI on track: How to identify, repair and prevent mistakes that derail

implementation. Palm Beach Gardens, FL. LRP.

Wallace, F., Blase, K., Fixsen, D., & Naoom, S. (2008). Implementing the ndings of research: Bridging the gap between

knowledge and practice. Washington, DC: Education Research Service.

Psychology in the SchoolsDOI: 10.1002/pits

Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.