A Quantitative Examination of School Leadership and Response to Intervention

Abstract

This study sought to provide educational researchers, policy-makers, and professionals with quantitative data on the status of RTI implementation, as well as on which leadership behaviors have been associated with successful implementation. School psychologists and other RTI professionals rated their schools on RTI implementation using the RTI Essential Components Integrity Rubric and rated their school principals on leadership style using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X. Descriptive data indicate that while schools have made progress, they have fallen far short of having fully implemented the RTI model. Multiple regression analysis identified transformational leadership as the predictive factor for RTI implementation, highlighting the importance of effective school leadership for this model.

Shifting Prevalence Patterns for Special Educational Needs in the Era of Response-to-Intervention Policy

“…Proponents of RTI initially proclaimed the potential for RTI to increase general education inclusion for students with disabilities, thereby reducing the number of students receiving core instruction in special education environments (Ehren and Nelson, 2005;Groshe and Volpe, 2013;Maier et al, 2016). The delivery of general education interventions was thought to have preventive value for common disabilities such as SLD in reading and LI.…”

“…Disability prevalence changes within individual school systems may reflect local-level variance among multidisciplinary teams in how RTI policy is implemented (Zirkel and Thomas, 2010) and/or a lack of fidelity with RTI implementation (Maier et al, 2016). These are two notable reasons why schools need to evaluate the systems and procedures that are in place (Castillo and Batsche, 2012).…”

O Modelo RTI como estratégia de prevenção aos transtornos de aprendizagem

“…In recent years, in the US, the emphasis on learners' individual needs has provided context for adapting educational interventions that sought to address issues of students who were not meeting the educational proficiency standards outlined in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. In contrast to that country's traditional education system, the RTI model has emerged as a proactive proposal focused on prevention and early intervention of academic and behavioral problems (Cicek, 2012;Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;Grosche & Volpe, 2013;Maier et al, 2016;Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016).…”

“…Investments in programs that prioritize prevention and adequate intervention to children›s deficits are observed, especially in the United States of America (USA). In this country, one of the key models of preventive-level intervention that has been most effective for learners is Response to Intervention (RTI) programs (Carta, Greenwood, Atwater, McConnell, Goldstein, & Kaminsk, 2015;Castro-Villarreal et al, 2014;Cheung, Mak, Sit, & Soh, 2016;Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;Maier, Pate, Gibson, Hilgert, Hull, & Campbell, 2016;Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016).…”

“…The RTI, although a procedure already consolidated in the US, is relatively new in Brazil. The model has emerged as a promising alternative to cope with this reality and is pointed by the literature as an effective resource for early identification of specific cases of SLD, including Dyslexia, and as a guide for interventions appropriate to the demands of each case (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010;Carta et al, 2015;Castro-Villarreal et al, 2014;Ciullo, Lembke, Carlisle, Thomas, Goodwin, & Judd, 2016;Maier et al, 2016;Robertson & Pfeiffer, 2016;Stoiber, 2014).…”