RTI Blog

The National Implementation Research Network writes extensively about the need for implementation studies to determine how research findings that establish efficacy of a practice can move from a passive process approach of research to practice to an active processapproach (Fixsen & Blasé, 2009). Passive process approaches are described as our traditional model of research to practice—researchers establish efficacy under very tightly controlled conditions, publish the results, and expect practitioners to translate the findings into best practices in a school environment. Active process approaches include a focus on implementation research, to include examining the contexts in which research-based practices are successfully brought to scale.

I appreciated the blog posting from Bob Heimbaugh entitled "Getting Buy-In for RtI Implementation." The recommendations provided are ones I echo in my practice and work with schools in my district. As we have continued to mature our efforts with RtI, I have had further thoughts about the importance of discussing implications of the core principles of RtI on our personal and collective practices. For a recent presentation, I framed these implications as "RtI: Expecting and Capitalizing on the Dissonance." Framing the issues in terms of "dissonance" seemed to fit because the principles are ones that seem so easy to agree with, but sometimes difficult to have our actions match the agreement in practice. For this post, let's focus on two of the core principles outlined in Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation (2006) including:

(a) we can effectively teach all children, and

(b) monitor student progress to inform instruction.

When districts or buildings are getting started with RtI efforts, attention in the first year is often directed to the assessment systems, discussions about core and intervention approaches, and how personnel can, and will, be utilized. Over the years, I have learned to add the issue of scheduling to the list of actions requiring early attention and careful construction. When scheduling is not attended to, the other decisions that were made become compromised if full implementation is not realistic.

If you are in a school that has not yet started RtI implementation, but you are moving in that direction, you may want to meet with your school principal before beginning. The support and influence of the building principal will help school staff realize full RtI implementation. RtI work is rewarding. Initial implementation can sometimes seem overwhelming, but as school teams work through the process, the benefits for students soon come to light. The principal can be extremely influential in the process. Before beginning RtI you may want to ask your building principal the following questions.

As we have moved through our behavior RTI process, the big question that came up is how do we identify those students that may be in need of Tier 2 support? As we mentioned before, our Tier 1 supports of "Time to Teach" and PBIS have worked for about 88% of our students. The other 12% have moved on to Tier 2 supports. We identified some of these students with data, but it would be really nice to find those needing Tier 2 support before we start to see behaviors that really disrupt and have adverse effects in the classroom.