Professional Development, Capacity Building, and Research Needs: Critical Issues for Response to Intervention Implementation

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in conjunction with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act amendments of 2004 (IDEA) have created incentives to improve how K-12 instruction is provided and to improve the achievement of all students, including those with disabilities. To reach these goals, however, a thorough research base is needed, practitioners and administrators must be provided with training in how to use this research effectively in practice, and systems must be put in place to support practitioners and administrators in implementing and sustaining the use of evidence-based practices in schools. An emerging framework that provides an infrastructure to support the use of evidence-based practices and provides a model for instructing and intervening on behalf of all students to help improve their achievement is response to intervention (RTI). Although the RTI framework holds this potential, many practical questions, such as the following, need to be answered for practitioners and administrators to proceed successfully in its full implementation: What are the evidence-based practices in various components of RTI? What outcomes can schools expect if they implement those practices within the RTI framework with fidelity? How can we prepare teachers to optimally implement a system of RTI? What do states, districts, and schools need to consider if they are to sustain the use of RTI over time? And finally, what are future research needs? The article in this issue by Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, and Ball (2007), which both lays out the key components of a system of RTI as it should be implemented in an education setting and sets the framework for the series of articles in this special issue, states: Successful implementation of RTI is multifaceted and involves knowledge of evidence-based interventions, multitiered intervention models, screening, assessment and progress monitoring, administering interventions with a high degree of integrity, support and coordinated efforts across all levels of staff and leadership within the school, and sustaining systems of prevention grounded in an RTI framework. For each of these components the authors describe the salient issues, current research, and next steps needed to ensure the use of valid and reliable evidence-based practices within a system responsive to students' education needs and supportive of practitioners' implementation. The results of research are not useful if practitioners are not sufficiently trained in their use. In addition, this training is unlikely to occur in a high-quality, supported way without changing the systems within which schools work and without building capacity to support practitioners in their implementation (Glover & DiPerna, 2007). Thus, we will reflect on professional development and building the capacity necessary for sustained implementation, and address current research needs for the RTI model. Professional Development Shinn (2007) distinguishes two RTI processes: little and big RTI. As described by the author, the rti process serves all students and ensures that they are benefiting from the instruction they are receiving. The purpose of the RTI process, on the other hand, is to make a special education entitlement decision when a student has not responded to an rti process. When considering what support and coordinated efforts to provide, it may be helpful to split RTI into these two frameworks, if only to differentiate among the special types of training practitioners may need. Depending on their roles, many educators will need training in primary- and secondary-tier interventions, and in the assessments used for screening and progress monitoring, so that they are able to match interventions with student needs. Only some educators will need to be trained in the delivery of intensive, individualized interventions. Certainly special educators will need this training, along with training in (a) the identification of learning disabilities, and (b) using RTI as part of a comprehensive evaluation. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 97 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.