Running Head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

Effectiveness of the Response to Intervention Programs and the Implementation Process

Alexsia Chitwood
Santa Clara University

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

1

Introduction:
Sarah is a second language learner, with Hindi being her first language that she uses and
is modeled by adults at home, and English being the language she is taught at school. She
isperforming at a reading level far below grade level expectation. She struggles with
comprehension, reading accuracy,fluency as well as decoding vowel blends. She lacks
confidence in herself and tends to wait for help or completely guesses, rather than taking the
initiative and figuring it out on her own. For example, during a conversation with the teacher, she
was trying to be encouraged to try something on her own, but she resisted. The teacher said,
"Don't you want to figure it out on your own rather than me just giving you the answer?" Sarah's
response was "No, I just rather you tell me the answer." It is believed that Sarah has been enabled
quite a bit in her home life, and even up until the end of first grade, her parents would come
during her lunch break and spoon feed her. Cultural differences and family dynamics such as the
situation noted is believed to feed into the "Do it for me" mentality that has hindered her
learning. Teachers struggle with students like Sarah, who are not qualified for the special day
program and do not have a specific learning disability. Sarah needs extra help and is not getting it
due to the high demand of teacher attention needed by many struggling students. It if for this
specific reason that during the reauthorization of IDEA 2004, Response to Intervention (RtI) was
also implemented as the key structured program for intervention. Since 2004, schools have
begun to implement RtI into their framework, and have had mixed results. People have also
written different views in regards to the successfulness of the implementation process of RtI
programs, despite the overall positive opinion of the concept of RtI. The goal of this paper is to
provided a clear understanding of what RtI is, the forms that are implemented into school

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

2

systems, what are the successful aspects of RtI, what aspects need improvement and case studies
explaining the positive and negative benefits of RtI.

What is RtI:
Response to Intervention (RtI) is an academic approach and behavioral intervention used
to provide early and intensive assistances to children who are performing below basic in regards
to their grade level standards. RtI refers to the practice of providing high-quality instruction and
intervention matched to students needs, monitoring students progress frequently to make
decisions about instruction changes and evaluating regularly collected data on student progress to
determine whether to refer the student for special education support (Rinaldi. 2011). The
program was created as a part of the 2004 reauthorization of the federal initiative Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is most commonly used in reading programs in
elementary schools, and is considered to be the steps educators will take before making
areferralfor special education services.
RtI is traditionally set up as a three tier system, tier one, tier two, and tier three. Tier one
is the students normal classroom with their general education teacher. They teach on level skills
and move at a consistent pace that the majority of kids will be able to keep up with. The
instruction is geared for all of the students, but unfortunately is targeted towards the students
who are performing at grade level. Those who fall below grade level standards and are having
challenges with keeping up with the content are typically moved into Tier Two.
Tier two is targeted instruction in an intervention classroom with a specialized teacher
(Lenskis, 2012). As previously stated, reading is the most common subject used with RtI so
students will work in smaller groups with a specialized reading teacher who has a background

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

3

working with children who are struggling with the topic at hand, such as comprehension, reading
accuracy,and fluency. In this tier, the teacher will work at a slower pace and spend more time
working with the individual students so they can get closer to grade level expectations.
Tier three is the intensive one-on-one instruction provided to children who have shown
little if any improvement in the previous two tiers. The instructor focuses on working to improve
specific areas that a student is struggling with and can go at the pace of the student rather than at
the pace of the majority of the class. If a student shows lack of improvement in tier three, they
most likely have a learning disability and will be referred for testing.

Other Forms of RtI:

Traditionally the three tier RtI program is used in primary schools, but in Lenskis (2012)
commentary, she provided information about how RtI can be used in secondary schools,
specifically how content area teachers; such a math, science, and history teachers can use a
version of RtI in order to help their students who are struggling with literacy. Lenski (2012)
states:
For content area teachers to make an impact on students literacy achievement, they need
to focus on instructing students on ways to become readers in their specific discipline rather
than teaching general reading skills. (2012) In other words, Lenski (2012) believes that teachers
should focus on giving students strategies that are required specifically for the subject they teach.
She provides the example of how a math teacher instructed the children to read each math
problem slowly, carefully, and to find each specific detail in order to understand the entire
situation at hand. This math teachers instructions were the ideal way of using RtIs tier one in
secondary schools to improve the students literacy, according to Lenski (2012).

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

4

Ideally the tier two instructor would be working with the content area teacher in tier one
to support the child with their struggles understanding the subject. Lenski (2012) describes a
student who is enrolled in a World History that will have to write an essay on the events of the
Cold War and how it shaped Unites States polices after WWII. The tier two teacher could assign
reading based on the Cold war for that student, thus familiarizing them on the topic at an easier
reading level for them. That student would then be able to process the more difficult reading
assignments given to him in his World history class because he has previous knowledge on the
topic. This idea is known as scaffolding, in an education context. Teachers provide a support
system to help a child achieve the goal needed to meet grade level standards. Creating such a
system for each content area would be the ideal for RtI adaptations to secondary schools,
according to Lenski (2012).

Positive Reviews of RtI:

While there is no denying that implementing a new program has its challenges, Abbots &
Wills (2012) observed a school (Parks School) that was able to adapt the RtI to their schools
specific needs, rather than letting the standards of RtI hold them back. In their article Improving
the Upside-Down Response-to-Intervention Triangle with a Systematic, Effective Elementary
School Reading Team, they discuss how after trial and error with their implementation of the
RtI Program, the school found the key components that are needed to create a stainable and
successful program that helps children at a school with an upside-down RtI program. Upsidedown means that the majority (60%) of children are below benchmark standards and the minority
(40%) are at or above benchmark standard, thus flipping RtIs iconic triangle upside-down.

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

5

Traditional tier one contains the majority of children (80%), while tier two (15%) and tier three
(5%) contain the minority. (Abbot & Wills. 2012).
One of the main components that a successful RtI program needs is that schools must
have an assessment program that is easy to use, understand, and categorize so that all the
children can be assessed in the same manner to provide accurate data to correctly identify which
tier they will most likely succeed.
Teacher fidelity is also a major contributing factor. The school must make sure that the
teachers are actually participating in the program and making sure each student gets the help they
need and are being assessed frequently for any change in improvement. A way to do that is by
creating an RtI reading Team, who essentially stay on top of the program. They choose the
intervention curriculum after research on many programs. These teachers choose the curriculum
that would best fit their schools environment, philosophy, and level of intervention
needed, (Abbot & Wills, 2012). Teacher reviews need to be done by the RtI reading team, to
make sure that the students are set up for success. For example, at Parks School, the kindergarten
teachers were not focusing heavily on literacy in their curriculum, but after a review they
implemented an intervention curriculum that increase the number of kindergarteners at or above
benchmark standards when assessed at the beginning of first grade.
Ideally, a variety of skilled teachers, administrators and paraprofessional should
participate at conferences to be trained on the intervention programs. This is separate from a
reading team, so that changes in staff did not hinder the programs and the staffs knowledge of it.
By having a variety of staff trained, the school can create an intervention plan that included every
available school personnel.

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

6

Parks School is in an urban school setting and struggles financial, but despite their
struggles, they have adapted the RtI program to what best fits their school and their students
needs to make it a success. Much like Abbot & Wills (2012), Bean & Lillenstein (2012) created a
list of seven key factors for a successful RtI program. Their list was created based of their
research of five elementary schools, from surveys sent to the principles to their own observations
and interviews. These components were (1) in-depth knowledge of literacy development and
instruction, (2) the role of data as key for instruction decision making, (3) differentiation of
instruction, (4) collaboration, (5) commitment to life long learning, (6) leadership skills, and (7)
facility with technology. Another aspect Bean & Lillenstein (2012) believed to be an asset for a
strong implementation of RtI was having the principal serving as the central personfor
promoting a risk free environment, leading the effort in established norms for collaboration, and
facilitating shared responsibilities and accountability. While a principal is believed to be the
support system in the implementation process, others use teams, such as RtI Reading Team
(Abbot & Wills. 2012), are used when a principal lacks the capabilities or knowledge to lead a
team properly.Findings have suggest that RtI can be a reality for schools, through a process of
change and adaptation to create the best environment for teachers, administrators,
paraprofessionals and of course students. (Bean & Lillenstein. 2012)

Articles with Cases Studies Suggesting Positive Outcome of RtI:

Riverside Elementary School was one of four pilot sites that was designed to promote the
implementation of RtI. Overall, the teachers administrators and other faculty at Riverside felt
that the implementation of RtI was overall going well with a few challenges that they are
working threw. Riverside School offered the most consistent and potentially sustainable picture

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

7

of school wide implementation, Shepherd & Salembier (2010). Riverside was provided with a
professional development course around RtI and literacy from an educational consultant from the
state department of education. Because of this course, the teachers felt they had a clear grasp on
what they were going to be doing, and how to do it. The course taught the faculty that RtI was a
general education initiative, a three tiered approach to instruction, how to use scientifically-based
care curricula and interventions, common measures for universal screenings and progress
monitoring, and how to set up and make decisions through an educational support team.
Vermont, the state that started the pilot study realized the RtI explanation was brief, and that was
the leading factor to provide a team to teach the faculty of each school about the intervention
program.
During their time at Riverside Elementary School, Shepherd & Salembier (2010) noted
themes that represented the interviewees perspective on that change that occurred due to the RtI
implementation. One of the themes was the idea of changing classroom practices through and
ongoing and systematic assessment of student learning. Some of the teachers mentioned how
having a consistent standardized test that all of the teachers are required to use because then they
are speaking the same language Before RtI, we werent using the same measure so note one RtI
ensured that we all stared using the same base line measures. Now when we say something like
Gregory is low, we know that we are speaking about his low achievement according to a
standard instead of low achievement in my view, (Shepherd & Salembier. 2010). By being
able to speaking the same educational and assessment language, the teachers have found that
their collaboration among general educators, Title I instructors, and special educators had
increased as well.

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

8

Overall, the faculty at Riverside Elementary School, believed RtI implementation to be a

continuing process at their school, but they have high hopes for the successfulness of the
program, they were provided with tools and resources that, along with the hard work, dedication
and willingness to change, provide a successful implementation of the RtI program.
Garden Elementary School, located in a large urban neighborhood with a majority of
minority students (Hispanic 59%, African American 16%, Asian 13% White 11% and other 1%)
(Rinaldi. 2011), also demonstrated positive outcomes due to the implementation of RtI. The
faculty was provided with three 90 minute professional development sessions each academic
year from a university researcher conducting the study, just as Riverside, the teachers felt
prepared and supported to take on the challenge of using RtI in their classrooms. Garden School
was lucky enough to have a principal who took into consideration the extra time teachers need to
make sure they were communicating data and interventions with each other to best fit the need of
the students. The principal created time in the schedule to allow not only for individual planning
time for teachers, but also allotted time for collaboration among differ tier teachers, in order to
review the needs of the students. The positive outcomes that Rinaldi (2011) noted from the data
of this study included, an increased collaboration among all education in the school, implement
in delivery of multi-tiered instruction to all learners, ad fewer inappropriate referrals to special
education.
What came unique to the data of Rinaldis study was the perspective teachers had before
RtI was implemented and then after the study was over (three years later). At the beginning of
the process, many teachers voiced their concerns about changing the intervention process when
teachers already had their own set ways of doing things, and there was a major concern about the
collaboration process not only between educators, but between the teachers and the parents, the

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

9

main concern being that no one really understood what it was, therefore could not explain to one
another what they were planning on doing. By the end of Rinaldis study, she noted that the
majority of the teacher show a drastic change in their perspective of the collaboration process,
and thus changed the environment the school we fostering. On general educator stated, I feel so
welcomed because we act like a community with a goal The level of discussion and depth of
discussion wasnt there two years ago- but now we have a common language. If an intervention
isnt working, we arent afraid to ask [each other] for help, (Rinaldi. 2011).
Both of the studies mentioned that sample sizes were a limitation on the study, but also
made the point that since their studies allow[ed] the voice of the teacher to be heard in the
school change process and could inform school and district leadership as they consider how to
best support educators in planning and implementing [RtI]. (Rinaldi. 2011).

Reservations and Concerns of RtI:

The article Response to Intervention: Ready or Not? Or, From Wait-to-Fail to WatchThem Fail (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009) suggest that RtI does not have enough research done in
order to consider the program a complete success. While they do agree with the concept of RtI,
many researchers, including Reynolds & Shaywitz (2009) strongly believe that the program
needs improvement in areas such as how to implement it properly, being an only means of
diagnosis for Learning Disabilities,
Reynolds & Shaywitz (2009) discuss how implementation of RtI on a large scale is an
issue that not many are away of. Research has been done in laboratories and on small scale
experiments that have suggest positive results at to the effect of the program on childrens

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

10

literacy, but the authors believe that there is a lack of evidence supporting the same effect on a
large-scale context. Reynolds & Shaywitz (2009) quote Pogrow:
The fact that something works in a few classrooms, in a few schools, with a few teachers, at a
few grade levels, for a few weeks, and so on say nothing about whether or how it can be
disseminated or will actually work on a large scale. (1996) In a large scale situation research and
practitioners of RtI lack the ability to control the situation and other variables that may influence
a students success or lack of improvement in their literacy. Reynolds & Shaywitz (2009) suggest
that until research in done as a longitudinal study on a large scale, the effectiveness of the
program will be unclear.
Another concern that was bought up in Ready or Not? was the fact that some
institutions are using RtI rankings (Tier 1, 2, & 3) as a diagnostic model. This means that they
are categorizing the students in the upper tiers to have a learning disability because their skills
are not up to par with their peers. Reynolds & Shaywitz (2009) are critical of this method
believing that simply because a child needs extra help does not mean they have a learning
disability. There are multiple factors that can contribute to a child performing at a reading level
below grade level expectations, such as being a second language learner, emotional or behavioral
problems, or even lack of home support.
Response to Intervention and Dynamic Assessment: Implementing Systematic,
Dynamic, and Individualized Intervention in Primary School is another article that uses a
critical eye when reviewing the RtI program. One of Gustafsons et al. (2014) criticisms was that
implementation requires a lot of change on multiple levels of the educational system. A lot of
change means a lot of money that many schools do not have, especially the schools that need
intervention the most. Mellard et al. states that RtI may be a luxury afforded by higher

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

11

socioeconomic status schools (2009). Since extra resources would be needed to make RtI
work as intended, it is not easily accessible to low socioeconomic status schools.
Gustafson et al. (2014) also points out that there is no consensus of how to implement it
and the specifics behind RtI thus making it difficult to do successfully. For example, a major fault
in the program is the lack of cut-off point system, meaning when is a child considered tier one,
tier two, or tier three. Each school creates their own cut-off point, which can create a huge
discrepancy in classification. A student at one school might be classified as having a learning
disability, while that same student might have just been seen as needing some extra time and
assistance to do the work. RtI also fails to provide details of how to accurately measure the R in
RtI: response. What classifies a student as responding or not responding to the intervention
program? A similar situation occurs at the cut-off point. Each school uses their own assessment
and measurement tools so a child who is responding at one school might not be classified as
responding at another school.

Articles with Cases Studies Suggesting Concerns of RtI:

Brendle (2015) did a case study using Survey Monkey (an online survey creation
program) allowing her to send the survey via email to 280 teachers (both general education and
special education focused), with a return rate of 33% (94 surveys returned) from the target
population: rural elementary schools in Texas. The purpose of her study was to analyze teachers
perceptions on the intervention programs, such as RtI, that have been implemented into their
school, and whether or not the support team created was functional and helpful to the process
ofthe intervention program. Brendle's (2015) data suggested that special education teachers were
more knowledgeable than the general education teachers in regards to their understanding of the

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

12

intervention process. Brendle (2015) believes this to be because special education teachers are
frequently dealing with children who have special modifications that are required for individual
students, and that they are also a part of the IEP process more frequently and thus are more
familiar with the laws and requirements for intervention programs. Brendle (2015) suggests that
special education teachers are always a useful attribute to an intervention team at a school or
district due to their experience and insight.
Unfortunately, having general education teachers with low understanding of how to
implement an intervention program either into their classroom or for individual students is
considered a detrimental factor to the success of the intervention program according to previous
studies.
Previous studies have identified the following characteristics necessary for intervention
teams to effectively assist students who are struggling: (a) all teachers on the team have
knowledge of the intervention team process (Brendle. 2015).
All teacher knowledge is a crucial factor to the successfulness of an intervention
program. In order for all teachers, especially the general education teacher who would be
working in the classroom with these students, to have adequate knowledge, they must be trained
on the program. This is so they can make appropriate referrals to special education.
This specific study suggested that teachers, while successful at making the accurate
referrals, were unable to follow through with taking measurements and providing data of the
students progress with the intervention program set up by the team. Without a follow through of
data, how could a teacher or the team know if the program is helping, hindering or having no
effect on the childs progress in the classroom. Brendle (2015) suggests this is an aspect that is

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

13

weak with the intervention programs across the board. Plans are started and implemented, but
follow though has been rare, especially with the RtI program.
Research from another study done on the implementation of the RtI in rural schools also
suggest struggles in the implementation process due to the lack of training provided for the
teachers, for this case specifically, it was because of financial limitation that this program
struggled.
Two schools from a rural school district in southeastern United States were looked at
during their first year of implementing the RtI programs. Researchers, Gretchen Robinson,
William Burdock and Kristin Sinclair (2010), interviewed various teachers and administrators
who were highly involved in the implementation process. In the article Implementing RtI in
Two Rural Elementary Schools: Encouraging Beginnings and Changelings for the Future, the
successes, challenges, and factors that impeded and/or facilitated the schools implementation
process were studied. Evidence based practices, data-based decision making, collaboration, and
implementation and support were the four factorsthat stood out in this research in regards to the
implementation process. Overall, Robinson et al. (2010), stated that RtI could be successfully
implemented if the schools have on-going professional development, fiscal and administrative
support, requirement and retention of highly qualified teachers, technology support and
scientifically-based instructional practices need to be established. While they did state that in
their opinion the programs were on their way to success, they admitted that because these were
in rural areas, the schools were struggling financially, which was a concerning factor. Many of
the aspects they found to be hindering the successful implementation were due to the lack of
funding the schools had. For example, due to finical limitations at these schools, the teachers did
not have sufficient access to professional development. Many of the teachers were unsure of how

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

14

to use the RtI program, because they were never trained, or have very limited training on it.
Without funding, teachers cannot be given the proper training to make a program successful.
Struggles such as untrained teachers could make a dramatic difference in the functionality of the
RtI program.

Conclusion:
Sarahs school has implemented a form of RtI, and Sarah was placed in tier two. With
more individual help, she has shown improvement, but not enough to move her down to tier one.
The reality is that children who are in tier two and tier three will almost always be considered
below grade level, with the rare exceptions. Those students are constantly struggling and once
they finally understand a certain concept, the other students who are performing at grade level
have already moved on to a new topic. For students like Sarah, it might always be a catch up
game. It is not common for a significant amount of children to move down in tiers (showing
significant improvement), but more research needs to be done on whether the RtI program
actually works on bringing children up to grade level standards and if students who are in tier
two and three continue to struggle in secondary education.

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

15

Citations
Abbott, Mary & Wills, Howard. (2012) Improving the Upside-Down Response-to-Intervention
Triangle with a Systematic, Effective Elementary School Reading Team. Preventing
School Failure, 56(1), 37-46. DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.555793
Bean, Rita & Lillenstein, Jennifer. (2012). Response to Intervention and he Changing Rolls of
School-wide Personnel. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 65, No. 7, DOI: 10.1002/TRTR.01073
Brendle, Janna. (2015). A Survey of Response to Intervention Team Memebers Effective
Practices in Rural Elementary Schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, Vol. 34, No.
2, 3-8.
Gustafson, Stefan, Svensson, Idor, & Falth, Linda. (2014) Response to Intervention and Dynamic
Assessment: Implementing Systematic, Dynamic, and Individualized Intervention in
Primary School. International Jouranl of Disbliity, Developmental Education, Vol. 61,
No. 1, 27-43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.878538
Lenski, Susan. (2012). What RTI Means for Content Area Teachers. International Reading
Association, 276-282. DOI:10.1002/JAAL.00034
Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
24, 186195. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x
Pogrow, S. (1996) Reforming the Wannabe Reformers: Why Education Reforms Almost Always
End Up Making Things Worse. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77, 656-663.
Reynolds, Cecil R. & Shaywitz, Sally E. (2009). Response to Intervention: Ready or Not? Or,
From Wait-to-Fail to Watch-Them Fail. School Psychology Q, 130, DOI: 10.1037/
a0016158

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

16

Rinaldi, Claudia. (2011). Response to Intervention: Educators Perspectives of a Three-Year RTI

Collaborative Reform Effort in an Urban Elementary School. Journal of Education, Vol.
191, No. 2.
Robinson, Gretchen G., Bursuck, William D., & Sinclair, Kristen D. (2010) A Survey of
Response to Intervention Team Members Effective Practices in Rural Elementary
Schools. The Rural Educator, 34 (3), 1-9.
Shepherd, Katherine & Salembier, George. (2010). Leading, Learning and Literacy:
Implementing a Response to Intervention approach in the Riverside Elementary School.
The NERA Journal Vol 46, No. 1.