Implementing Response to Intervention: Results of a Survey of School Principals.

Public schools across the nation face daily challenges related to increasing achievement, meeting the needs of all students, providing early and evidence-based interventions for struggling students, and tracking student progress (Futrell, Gomez, &. Bedden, 2003; Yellin et al., 2003). Schools lacking a systemic approach to change may implement interventions without fidelity or too late, resulting in unnecessary student referral for a special education evaluation. In addition, students who struggle to meet standards but do not qualify for special education frequently do not receive the supports needed to be successful (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, &. Young, 2003). The Response to Intervention (Rtl) framework has been developed as a possible solution to many school daily challenges, including the need to increase achievement, improve equity and access to learning, and decrease unnecessary special education referrals (Fuchs &. Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2003). Previous research has focused on the effectiveness of specific student level interventions used in Rtl models, implementation within specific school settings, and small scale statewide implementation effort; however, little is known or understood about how Rtl has been implemented across an entire state and whether or not principals in implementing schools find Rtl useful for addressing learning challenges (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Kozleski &. Huber, 2010). In this study, we report on the results of a survey administered to all principals in a rural state to investigate perceptions of Rtl implementation.Review of the LiteraturePurported Benefits of RtlThe literature defines Rtl as a framework of tiered instruction and interventions that is predicated on a set of key assumptions, including use of scientifically based curricula in the general education setting, universal screening in core academic areas, data-based decision-making within interdisciplinary teams, identification and use of a tiered support system, and ongoing student progress monitoring (Batsche et al., 2006; Fuchs &. Deshler, 2007; Harry &. Klingner, 2007; Kame'enui, 2007). Assuming that these key factors are in place, the framework allows for some variation based on local contextual factors and practices. The approach was designed to allow schools to engage in early detection, prevention, and support for students who were struggling in school, avoiding unnecessary referrals to special education and closing achievement gaps (Gersten et al., 2009). As a result of IDEA 2004 reauthorization, Rtl also can be used as an alternative to the ability/achievement discrepancy model in determining eligibility for students with suspected learning disabilities (Zirkel &. Krohn, 2008). For example, a student who has not made adequate progress following the provision and monitoring of evidence-based interventions may be classified as having a learning disability, provided the student's assessment profile is otherwise aligned with the characteristics of a learning disability (Shinn, 2007; Yell & Drasgow, 2007). The Rtl framework's focus on data-based decision-making among general educators, special educators, and families has had the potential to promote collaboration and result in increased achievement among students at risk (Ham, Chard, & Kame'enui, 2011).Implementation Studies to DateMuch of the Rtl research has centered on the effectiveness of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, primarily in reading and mathematics, where Rtl most often has been implemented (Gersten et al., 2009; Intervention Central, 2010). Specifically, several studies have found for students identified as needing Tier 2 support, interventions implemented with fidelity over 3 to 9 weeks were successful at improving performance and achievement (Gersten &. Dimino, 2006; Gersten et al., 2009; Intervention Central, 2010). Other studies have explored specific reading assessments' predictive validity accurately identifying children with reading challenges (Catts, Petscher, Schatschneider, Bridges, & Mendoza, 2009; WalkerDalhouse et al. …