International Teacher Education Conference 2014 1

International Teacher Education Conference 2014
teacher accountability. In a related vein, we remain uncertain about the extent students receiving interventions,
especially in Tier 3, are receiving levels of access to core curriculum that differ substantially from pre-RTI
practices.
Third and finally, we were impressed with the strength of the resolve of these participants with respect to
their support of collaboration. Without exception, the critical significance of providing administrative
encouragement for interdisciplinary communication and coordinated service provision was emphasized. All of
these individuals described changes that have occurred in ongoing collaboration between teachers and others in
the District, and all spoke to the need for continuing to move in this direction in the future.
In terms of future research, we need studies of perceptions of persons more directly connected with the
delivery of instruction, and in districts expressing varying levels of commitment to RTI. Hence, along with
additional studies of how administrators perceive, understand, and support RTI, there is a need for more studies
like that of Greenfield et al. (2010), which examined how practitioners perceive, understand, and reportedly
implement these procedures. There is also a need for observational studies of RTI implementation, and studies of
both perceptions and practices at the secondary level. In all cases, an objective of this research is to acquire an
understanding of how RTI looks in actual practice. We believe that the institutional ethnography methodologies
used here could contribute to this research.
We particularly stress the need for research that examines how practices at the different tiers are similar to, or
distinct from, each other with respect to decision-making, instructional strategies and the curriculum used, and
the potential impact of these similarities and differences on student progress in the general curriculum. For
example, we believe that more research similar to that of Shapiro et al. (2012) is needed to better understand
how teachers and others make between tier placement decisions at all tier levels, and the consequences of these
decisions for students over the course of their school careers.
There was the perception on the part of these administrators that, while the RTI process appeared to increase
their resolve in disability identification, its impact on “closing the gap” between successful and struggling
learners remained uncertain. This district was making a determined effort to use RTI to achieve this purpose;
however, it was too early to tell whether this objective was being realized. We emphasize that the issue here is
not whether implementing an ideal and highly controlled RTI process results in gap minimization but rather
whether the natural implementations of RTI in schools can achieve this end.
Finally, we note that these participants described intervention processes that usually involved enhancements
in instructional time, instructional intensity, and targeted curricular materials. Although it was addressed, less
attention was paid to how they supported and monitored interventions occurring within general education in
which differentiation, lesson and material adaptations, and/or embedding provide the basis for working with
struggling learners with and without disabilities. More research is needed on how leadership can support and
monitor as part of their service delivery model teacher accommodations and lesson differentiation within general
education. This kind of research is much needed, given that successful progress in the general curriculum is a
goal of instruction within an RTI framework.
References
Burns, M. K., & Scholin, S. (2013). Response to intervention: School-wide prevention of academic difficulties.
In J. W. Lloyd, T. J. Landrum, B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based approaches for assessment
(pp. 8-17). Boston: Pearson.
Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, C., & Cardarelli, A. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of a response to
intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 47-63. doi:10.1177/1044207310365499
Shapiro, E. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Gischlar, K. L., Semeniak, K., Leichman, E., & Bowles, S. (2012). An analysis
of consistency between team decisions and reading assessment data within an RTI model. Remedial and Special
Education, 33(6), 335-347.
Shepherd, K., & Salembier, G. (2011). Improving schools through a response to intervention approach: A crosscase
analysis of three rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 3-15.
Werts, M., Lambert, M., & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245-254. Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (2012). Relations between the CCSS and
RTI in literacy and language. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 387-391.
210