Making Response to Intervention Stick: Sustaining Implementation Past Your Retirement

  • Kim GibbonsEmail author
  • W. Alan Coulter


The response-to-intervention (RTI) or multi-tiered systems of supports (MTSS) framework has quickly emerged as a methodology for improving outcomes for all students. While as many as 60 % of districts are implementing this framework throughout the country, the real challenge lies in sustaining this innovation over the long term. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how educators and systems can institutionalize RTI/MTSS in ways that preserve the positive changes and instill resilience in resisting efforts to revert back to the old ways of doing things in schools. It is suggested that in order to effectively manage and sustain the change process, districts need to attend to seven imperative components: (a) Leadership, (b) Vision and Culture, (c) Infrastructure, (d) Resources, (e) Implementation Plans, (f) Professional Development (knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy), and (g) Incentives. This chapter describes each of these components along with practical suggestions at the local educational agency level. In addition, measuring implementation at both the state and local level is discussed. Finally, the chapter concludes with lessons learned and implications for practice.


Professional Development Professional Learning Implementation Plan Progress Monitoring Special Education Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allison, E., Besser, L., Campsen, L., Cordova, J., Doubek, B., Gregg, L., Kamm, C., Nielsen, K., Peery, A., Pitchford, B., Rose, A., Ventura, S., & White, M. (2010). Data teams: The big picture—looking at data teams through a collaborative lens. Englewood: Lead & Learn Press.Google Scholar
  2. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., Reschly, D., Schrag, J., & Tilly, D. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: National Association of Directors in Special Education.Google Scholar
  3. Batsche, G., Curtis, M., Dorman, C., Castillo, J., & Porter, L. (2007). The Florida problem-solving/response to intervention model: Implementing a statewide initiative. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assessing preservice teachers’ training in empirically-validated behavioral instruction practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 262–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response-to-intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response–to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Callender, W. (2009). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention statewide. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1998). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.Google Scholar
  11. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington: Solution Tress Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eric, H., Paul, P., & Ludger, W. (2010). U. S. math performance in global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high-achieving students? Boston: Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance Report No. 10–19.Google Scholar
  13. Feldman, M., & Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferriter, W., Graham, P., & Wight, M. (2013). Making teamwork meaningful: Leading progress-driven collaboration in a PLC at work. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blaise, K., Friedman, R., & Wallace, F. (2007). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  16. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18, 37–50.Google Scholar
  19. Hanushek, E., Peterson, P., & Woessmann, L. (2010). U.S. math performance in global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high achieving students? Cambridge: Harvard University. Accessed 21 Oct 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Hess, F. M. (2013). Cage-busting leadership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hoerr, T. (2005). The art of school leadership. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  22. Honore’, R. (2012). Leadership in the new normal: A short course. Lafayette: Acadian House.Google Scholar
  23. Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Todd, A. W., Newton, J. S., & Sprague, J. R. (2010). Designing and implementing individualized positive behavior support. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, Y., & McDermott, V. (2012). Aim high, achieve more: How to transform urban schools through fearless leadership. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  25. Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2011). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: Can classroom observations identify practices that raise achievement? Education Next, 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
  26. Knoster, T., & George, H. P. (2002). Realizing durable and systemic behavior change in schools: Guiding questions. NASP Communique, 30(6), 34–37.Google Scholar
  27. Kratochwill, T. R., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618–631.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, H. M., Catlin, D., & Elson, A. (2005). Costs of implementing adolescent literacy programs. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.Google Scholar
  29. Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005) School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  30. McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A. B., & McLeroy, K. R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations in schools—A study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. American Journal of Health Promotion, 9, 210–219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McNulty, B., & Besser, L. (2011) Leaders make it happen: An administrator’s guide to data teams. Englewood: Lead & Learn Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mellard, D. F., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). RTI implementation tool for reading: Best practices [Brochure]. Lawrence: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, C. (2006). The whole-faculty study groups fieldbook: Lessons learned and best practices from classrooms, districts, and schools. New York: Corwin.Google Scholar
  34. National Institutes of Health. (2013). Frequently asked questions about implementation science. Accessed 19 March 2013.
  35. Payne, C. (2008). So much reform so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Bierman, B. F. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research in Behavioral Sciences.Google Scholar
  37. Project Forum. (2007). Response to intervention as it relates to early intervening services: Recommendations. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.Google Scholar
  38. Reeves, D. (2005). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Englewood: Lead & Learn Press.Google Scholar
  39. Reynolds, C., & Shaywitz, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2) 130–145.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Roach, A., & Elliott, S. (2008). Best practices in facilitating and evaluating implementation integrity. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 195–208). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  41. Sailor, W. (2009). Making RtI work: How smart schools are reforming education through schoolwide response-to-intervention. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  42. Samuels, C. A., Sawchuk, S., Zehr, M. A., Kelleher, M., & Sparks, S. D. (2011, March 2). Special report: Response to intervention’s promise and pitfalls. Education Week, pp. S1–S16.Google Scholar
  43. Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38, 445–459.Google Scholar
  44. Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Seashore, L. K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of Research to The Wallace Foundation. University of Minnesota and University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  46. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The arts and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  47. Shelton, S. (2011). Strong leaders strong schools: 2010 school leadership laws. New York: Wallace Foundation.Google Scholar
  48. Sherer, J., & Spillane, J. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Review, 113(3), 611–657.Google Scholar
  49. Simmons, W. (2012). Data as a lever for improving instruction and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–9.Google Scholar
  50. Spectrum K12 School Solutions. (2010). Response to Intervention Adoption Study. Scholar
  51. Technology and Information Education Services. (2013). TIES Data System [Computer software]. St. Paul, MN: TIES.
  52. The Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning.Google Scholar
  53. Ward, R. (2004). Defining the school’s culture. In R. Ward & M. Burke (Eds.), Improving achievement in low performing schools: Key results for school leaders. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. White, J., Kumpke, P., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). School psychologists’ use and awareness of treatment guidelines: Present and future. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  56. Wiener, R. M., & Soodak, L. C. (2008). Special education administrators’ perspectives on response to intervention. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21, 39–45.Google Scholar
  57. Zamuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E., (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of continuous improvement. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  58. Zirkel, P. (2011). Professional practice: State laws and guidelines for RtI: Additional implementation features. NASP Communique, 39(7), 21–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Croix River Education DistrictRush CityUSA
  2. 2.TIERS Group, Human Development CenterLSU Health Sciences Center—New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations