Factors Related to Successful RTI Implementation
By Jason E. Harlacher & Chelsea E. Siler
A recent movement in schools is the implementation of multitiered models
of service delivery. Known as response to intervention (RTI; Barnes
& Harlacher, 2008; Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007; NASDSE,
2006), multitiered systems of support (MTSS, Kansas Multi-Tiered Systems
of Support, n.d.), or instructional decision making (IDM; Ikeda et
al., 2002), these models refer to a tiered framework of services in which researchbased
instruction is matched to the “data-based needs of students” (Graden, Stollar,
& Poth, 2007, p.295). This approach to education, which is referred to as RTI for the
remainder of this article, has a philosophical background of prevention, early identification,
collaboration, and use of research-based, effective practices (Brown-Chidsey,
& Steege, 2005; NASDSE).
With that philosophy in mind, it easy to understand how RTI is a paradigm shift
for many schools (Reschly, 2008). Historically, schools have worked in silos where
teachers provide instruction independent from other professionals in the building
(Schmoker, 2006). When students are identified as having special needs, they are
grouped with other students with similar labels (e.g., special education, talented
and gifted, etc.). With RTI, these silos are deconstructed as educators spend more
time collaborating with each other to develop instructional plans for all students. Instead
of grouping students together based on identified labels, students are grouped
based on their instructional needs (NASDSE, 2006; Tilly, 2008). In addition, educators
collect and analyze various types of data and gather information on fidelity
of implementation of instruction. All of this may require new skills from educators,
restructuring of their roles, and even a reorganization of school programming and
teams. Consequently, implementation of RTI is a 3- to 5-year process for sites to
reach full implementation (Tilly, 2008).
Because implementation is a multiyear process, the question of what factors enable
a smooth and successful transition is posed. It is not difficult to find within the
literature what RTI is and how it may look within schools (Brown-Chidsey & Steege,
2005; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008; Jimerson et al., 2007), but there is
relatively less research on how to implement RTI successfully (Greenwood et al.; Kurns
& Tilly, 2008). To provide practitioners with more direction for implementation, this
article examines factors related to the successful implementation of RTI.
Conceptual Framework of RTI.
Within the literature, there is slight variation on what are the key components of
RTI. For example, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE, 2006) and St. Croix Education River District (SCRED, n.d.) identified multiple
tiers of intervention, a problem-solving orientation,
and the use of an integrated
data collection system as the three key components of RTI. Comparatively, Brown-
Chidsey and Steege (2005) wrote that RTI’s core features are high-quality instruction,
frequent assessment, and data-based decision making. Other sites have added
to these features. For example, Colorado’s Department of Education (n.d.) lists six
features of RTI: problem solving, curriculum and instruction, assessment, leadership,
family and community partnering, and positive school climate (Colorado Department
of Education, n.d.). Kansas’ State Department of Education has identified
assessment, instruction, and problem solving as components of their RTI model, but
also included leadership, professional development, and empowering culture as other
components (Kansas MTSS, n.d.). Although some states and researchers may use different
language or identify additional components, three common components comprise
any RTI model: (a) a comprehensive assessment system; (b) a range of effective,
research-based instruction (embodied in tiers or levels); and (c) use of the problemsolving
model (Shin, 2008).
Given these three components, the question of what factors may be related to the
successful implementation of RTI is presented. As an analogy, consider the goal of
running a marathon and the weeks of training and preparation that go into it. Such a
training plan would call for a certain amount of running and exercising per week, but
not everyone who begins a training routine will complete it, let alone run (and finish!)
the marathon. Do factors such as amount of sleep, type of running shoes, and the training
climate affect the likelihood of running the race? Similarly with RTI, what factors
affect the likelihood of implementing RTI and finishing that race?
To identify a set of factors that affect RTI implementation, articles that described
implementation efforts were gathered by searching the literature using keywords
related to RTI (e.g., RTI implementation, lessons learned, factors affecting implementation,
etc.). This review was not an exhaustive one, but it provided a starting
point in the literature on RTI implementation. If the article specifically identified
factors or lessons learned from implementation, as opposed to being a conceptual
paper, it was retained for analysis. A list of factors related to implementation was
created after reviewing the references obtained. A factor was included within the list
if (a) the authors identified the factor as important to implementation or provided
data that the factor was important, and (b) it was not foundationally related to the
three components of RTI.
For example, Graden et al. (2007) noted that a systems-level focus was a critical
factor for success, but a systems-level focus is inherent to the range of instructional
tiers. Thus, this factor was not retained for the purposes of the analysis. Comparatively,
the importance of school administration in leading implementation (i.e., leadership)
was retained as a factor because (a) it was described as important to implementation
and (b) it is conceptualized as distinct from the three RTI components (Chard & Harn,
2008; Clements & Kratochwill, 2008; Marston, Reschly, Lau, Muyskens, & Canter, 2007;
Peterson, Prasse, Shinn, & Swerdlik, 2008; Vaughn et al., 2008).
Once a factor was identified as important to RTI implementation, the factors
were grouped together based on conceptual similarity. For example, several researchers talked about the importance of ongoing training of staff and coaching (Abbott et
al., 2008), and others pointed out the need to understand the why behind RTI (Ikeda
et al., 2002). These two discussions were considered conceptually similar and were
categorized under the factor “Professional Development” (see Table 1). This process
is admittedly qualitative and based on the authors’ judgments of how these factors
conceptually relate, but an effort was made to draw similarities between descriptions
among the references in order to identify a manageable list of factors.
After the list of factors was identified, the percentage of references that mentioned
a particular factor was calculated. A total of 13 factors were identified across 20 total
references. The most common factors identified were Professional Development and
Staff Buy-In, as 55% and 50%, respectively, of the references reported these factors
as important to implementation. Leadership, Time for Collaboration, and Broad Ownership
were the next 3 most commonly reported factors. The entire list of factors is
displayed in Table 1.
Professional development. RTI implementation requires an array of new skills
from staff (Tilly, 2008), so it is no surprise that professional development (PD) was
the most reported factor. First and foremost, PD should be ongoing, structured, and
deliberate (Batsche, Curtis, Dorman, Castillo, & Porter, 2007; Peterson et al., 2007).
Professional development should focus on just that—development—which includes
ongoing coaching and ample opportunities
to practice new skills with feedback
(Peterson et al., 2007). As for the content,
the PD should include knowledge
of high-quality instruction, knowing
various assessment practices within an
RTI system (i.e., screening, diagnostic,
and formative), and using data to plan
instruction. Additionally, PD should include
the difference between individual
problem-solving and group-/schoollevel
problem-solving (Ikeda et al., 2007),
both small and large group format for
trainings (Abbot et al., 2008; Chard &
Harn, 2008), and include a thorough understanding
of why RTI is being implemented
(Ikeda et al., 2002). Altogether,
it is clear that PD is a factor that requires
deliberate planning and follow-up.
Staff buy-in. Staff buy-in is more than
just agreeing to implement RTI. It includes
understanding what RTI is, what
it takes to implement RTI, and how it is
different from previous practices (Tucker & Sornson, 2007). There is a major belief
change that accompanies RTI implementation, as staff will move from focusing “within
the child” to a more ecological framework when discussing student difficulties (Hughes
& Dexter, n.d.; Peterson et al., 2007). In particular, Ikeda and colleagues (2007) noted
that although some schools implemented practices associated with RTI well, they did
not integrate the belief system associated with it. As a result, many teachers were frustrated
with the process. Teachers felt that help was not provided until students were
qualified, even though students were provided with additional instruction prior to
referral. Therefore, part of the buy-in process should include an understanding that
additional support is provided earlier, is more targeted to students’ need compared
to previous models of service delivery, and that the goal of any intervention or instructional
strategy is to correct the identified problem, not place the child in special
education. Finally, buy-in includes establishing a two-way communication between
staff and leadership. This enables frequent feedback, which in turn increases the opportunity
for accurate implementation (Graden et al., 2007; Tucker & Sornson, 2007).
RTI is not a “one size fits all” model, so feedback from staff will ensure the model has
a contextual fit for a given site.
Other factors. Approximately 40% of the identified references described leadership,
time for collaboration, and broad ownership of the process as important. Leadership
is defined as having someone in the building who is the expert on RTI implementation.
It includes someone who can make decisions about policies and structures (Vaughn
et al., 2008), and who can provide clarity and reinforcement around goals (Chard &
Harn, 2008). Principals, therefore, are a critical part of implementation, as they can
provide the time, resources, and decision-making power needed for implementation
(Peterson et al., 2007).
With RTI, staff members use data to guide instruction more universally than before.
This involves the more frequent administration of formative assessments and
the designing and delivery of supplemental instruction. All of this requires significant
planning time, so time to collaborate with colleagues is another important factor for
implementation. An additional time block should be set aside solely for staff to interpret
data and plan instruction together (Clements & Kratochwill, 2008).
Broad ownership was identified as another factor, which is the ownership of implementation
by the entire staff. That is to say that RTI is not viewed as just another
way to identify students for special education or as one department’s responsibility.
Instead, RTI is viewed as a comprehensive, embedded process that involves the participation
and collaboration of every person in the building (Hughes & Dexter, n.d.).
Such a focus includes representation on problem-solving teams (e.g., parents, general
education teachers; Peterson et al., 2007), viewing RTI as a general education initiative
(Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007), and ensuring a culture of collaboration
and trust (Tucker & Sornson, 2007).
One final note is that although the factors in Table 1 were identified as important, it
is best not to forget the contextual nature of RTI. These were common factors identified
in the literature. However, although over half of the references identified professional
development as important, slightly less than one half did not. Should we conclude
professional development will not be important for close to half of sites that
implement RTI? Of course not, but it does point out the relative importance these
factors may have from site to site. For example, the factor resources/infrastructure
may be deemed more important in a district where resources are scarce, as opposed
to a district that has several intervention programs available for use at supplemental
tiers of instruction. Just as RTI will look different between two sites, it is theorized
that the “make or break” factors will look different, too.
How School Psychologists Can Help
School psychologists are in a great position to both facilitate and provide professional
development. Because of their knowledge of assessment and instruction, school psychologists
can serve as coaches for staff as they learn and use new skills. School psychologists
can also observe instruction to provide feedback, and they can participate
in data meetings to help staff analyze results. They can provide trainings on topics
such as the difference between individual- and group-level problem-solving, use of
CBM for progress monitoring, and how to visually display data. Given the flexibility in
their schedules and their training in consultation, assessment, and instruction, school
psychologists can surely be a part of the ongoing piece of professional development
identified by many references in this article (Abbott et al., 2008; Denton, Vaughn, &
School psychologists can also help with establishing buy-in from staff by facilitating
an understanding of RTI: what it is, and what it is not. School psychologists can
use their consultation skills to facilitate the discussion of how RTI differs from previous
practices and of its theoretical framework. Other things that school psychologists
can do is create monthly newsletters that answer questions about RTI or hold
“brown bags” where they lead a discussion of RTI during a lunch hour. Making the
paradigm shift takes time, and ensuring understanding of RTI can be facilitated by
The factors listed in Table 1 are a starting point for professionals to consider when
implementing RTI. Although this review was a qualitative one and there was not a measure
of how successful sites were with RTI implementation, school psychologists can
hopefully use the list in Table 1 to move forward with implementation. RTI implementation
is not an easy process, and with the stress of budget cuts and a taxed economy,
resources are scarce. The good news is that as schools implement RTI, there is an
opportunity for school psychologists to redefine their roles. Table 2 displays the top five factors identified through the analysis in this article and some practical means
school psychologists can use to accommodate these factors.
Abbott, M., Wills, H., Kamps, D., Greenwood, C.
R., Dawson-Bannister, H., Kaufman, J., et al.
(2008). The Kansas Reading and Behavior
Center’s K-3 prevention model. In C. Greenwood,
T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.),
Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned
in elementary schools (pp. 215–265). New
Barnes, A. C., & Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing
the confusion: Response-to-Intervention
as a set of principles. Education and Treatment
of Children, 31, 417–431.
Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Dorman, C., Castillo,
J., & Porter, L. J. (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
(pp. 378–395). New York: Springer
Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K.
A. (2007). The St. Croix Education District
model: Incorporating systems-level organization
and multitiered problem-solving process
for intervention delivery. In S. Jimerson, M.
Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.) Handbook
of response to intervention: The science and
practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
319–330). New York: Springer Media.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005).
Response to intervention: Principles and strategies
for effective practice. New York: Guilford.
Callendar, W. (2007). 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 (pp. 331–342). New
York: Springer Media.
Chard, D. J., & Harn, B. A. (2008). Project CIRCUITS.
In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M.
Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models:
Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp.
143–172). New York: Guilford .
Clements, M. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008).
Multitiered prevention models: Implications
and future perspectives. In C. Greenwood, T.
Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide
prevention models: Lessons learned in
elementary schools (pp. 269–289). New York:
Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 12, 2010 from Colorado
Response to Intervention (RTI) website
Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M.
(2003). Bringing research-based practice in
reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18(3), 201–211.
Graden, J. L., Stollar, S. A., & Poth, R. L. (2007).
The Ohio Integrated Systems model: Overview
and lessons learned. In S. Jimerson, M.
Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.) Handbook
of response to intervention: The science and
practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
288–299). New York: Springer Media.
Greenwood, C. R., Kratochwill, T. R., & Clements,
M. (2008). Schoolwide prevention
models: Lessons learned in elementary schools.
New York: Guilford.
Hughes, C., & Dexter, D. D. (n.d.). Field studies
of RTI programs, revised. RTI Action Network.
Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/
Ikeda, M. J., Grimes, J., Tilly III, W. D., Allison,
R., Kurns, S., & Stumme, J. (2002). Implementing
an intervention-based approach
to service delivery: A case example. In M.
Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions
for academic and behavioral problems
II: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp.
53–69). Bethesda, MD: National Association
of School Psychologists.
Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B.
C., Gustafson, J. K., Allison, R., & Stumme,
J. (2007). The Heartland Area Education
Agency 11 problem-solving approach: An
overview and lessons learned. In S. Jimerson,
M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.) Handbook
of response to intervention: The science
and practice of assessment and intervention
(pp. 255–268). New York: Springer Media.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden,
A. M. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention:
The science and practice of assessment
and intervention. New York: Springer Media.
Kansas Multi-Tier Systems of Support. (n.d.).
Retrieved November 12, 2010 from http://
Kimmel, M. K. (2008). The successes and
challenges of response to intervention: A
case study of the impact of RTI implementation.
Unpublished dissertation: University of
Kurns, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Response to intervention
blueprints. Alexandria, VA: National
Association of State Directors of Special
Lolich, E., & Richards, D. (2008, October).
Foundations and critical features of successful
RTI implementation. Powerpoint presentation
at 2008 Oregon Department of Education
Fall Conference, Eugene, OR.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A.
(2003). Problem-solving model for decision
making with high incidence disabilities: The
Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.
Marston, D., Reschly, A. L., Lau, M. Y., Muyskens,
P., & Canter, A. (2007). Historical perspectives
and current trends in problem solving.
In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.),
Evidence-based reading practices for response to
intervention (pp. 265–285). Baltimore: Brookes
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education. (2006). Response to intervention:
Policy considerations and implementation.
Alexandria, VA: NASDSE.
Newman Jacobs, C. (2008, Aug). An examination
of response-to-intervention as a framework
for school improvement: Educators’
perspectives regarding implementation. Unpublished
Manuscript: University of Southern
Peterson, D. W., Prasse, D. P., Shinn, M. R., &
Swerdlik, M. E. (2007). The Illinois Flexible
Service Delivery model: A problem-solving
model initiative. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, &
A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response
to intervention: The science and practice
of assessment and intervention (pp. 300–318).
New York: Springer Media.
Reschly, D. J. (2008). School psychology paradigm
shift and beyond. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology
V (pp. 3–15). Bethesda, MD: National Association
of School Psychologists.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Shinn, M. R. (2008). Best practices in curriculum-
based measurement and its use in a
problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology
V (pp. 243–262). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
St. Croix River Education District. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 12, 2010 from http://www
Tilly, W. D. (2008). The evolution of school
psychology to science-based practice: Problem
solving and the three-tiered model. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices
in school psychology V (pp. 17–36). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School
Tucker, J. A., & Sornson, R. O. (2007). One student
at a time; one teacher at a time: Reflections
on the use of instructional support. In S.
Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.),
Handbook of response to intervention: The science
and practice of assessment and intervention (pp.
269–278). New York: Springer Media.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Woodruff, A. L.,
Murray, C. S., Wanzek, J., Scammacca, N., et
al. (2008). In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill,
& M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention
models: Lessons learned in elementary schools