Training for Generalization and Maintenance in RtI Implementation: Front-Loading for Sustainability

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 81–88C© 2013 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

Training for Generalization and Maintenance in RtI Implementation:Front-Loading for Sustainability

Matthew K. Burns, Andrea M. Egan, Amy K. Kunkel, Jennifer McComas, Meredith M. Peterson,Naomi L. Rahn, and Jennifer Wilson

University of Minnesota

Response to Intervention (RtI) is being implemented as a new initiative in PK-12 schoolswith increasing frequency. However, the model must be sustained at the school level, whichis potentially difficult due to a number of challenges brought about by systems change. Thisarticle applied the Stokes and Baer (1977) framework for programming for generalization andmaintenance of behavior change to suggest specific activities in which schools could engageto better ensure RtI sustainability. We specifically discussed ways to (1) introduce to naturalmaintaining contingencies, (2) train with sufficient exemplars, (3) train loosely, (4) programcommon stimuli, (5) mediate generalization, and (6) train to generalize. Directions for futureresearch are included.

Response to Intervention (RtI) and other multitiered inter-vention systems are being adopted nationwide with increas-ing frequency (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster & Saunders, 2009)to increase student achievement for all students, reduce re-ferrals to special education, and close existing achievementgaps (Fuchs, Fuchs & Stecker, 2010). RtI has the potential topositively affect both systemic and student outcomes (Burns,Appleton & Stehouwer, 2005), but, some question whetherthe RtI movement will sustain over time (Burns, 2007; Ys-seldyke, 2005). RtI initiatives must ultimately be sustainedat the school level, and organizations adopting a system ofRtI are faced with a multitude of challenges brought aboutby systems change (Grimes, Kurns & Tilly, 2006).

Previous research has found that implementation integritycould be a serious threat to the validity of RtI models (Gansle& Noell, 2007). For example, school personnel consistentlyassessed fidelity of implementation for interventions that oc-curred at tier 2, but did not assess fidelity at tier 1, and thealignment between tiers was not explicit (Hill, King, Lemons& Partanen, 2012). Moreover, implementation integrity ofproblem-solving teams (PSTs) was low to the point of po-tentially affecting student outcomes (Burns & Symington,2002). Some of the challenges regarding implementation in-tegrity can be avoided by building on the existing knowledgeof the school personnel, streamlining processes, and using aclear system of communication between interventionist andteacher (Johnson, Pool & Carter, 2012). However, implemen-tation integrity can still wane as the implementation movesfurther from the initial supports (Burns & Symington, 2002;Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow & Swank, 1999), which furtherhighlights the need to focus on sustainability.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Matthew K. Burns, University ofMinnesota. Electronic inquiries should be sent to [email protected].

Sustainability is best obtained by changing the systemin which the initiative is implemented (Hargreaves & Fink,2000). Systems change is an “intentional process designedto alter the status quo by shifting and realigning the formand function of a targeted system” (Foster-Fishman, Nowell& Yang, 2007, p. 197), and is multifaceted with theoretical,ethical, and pragmatic implications (Noell & Gansle, 2009).Prior to implementation, theoretical and ethical dimensionsof systems change are considered, including issues of what tochange, why to change it, and how that change will take place.Promoting adoption and implementation of RtI in schools re-quires that stakeholders see the value of its implementationin their schools (McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan & Sugai,2010) and that teacher “buy-in” is high. Moreover, educatorsare more likely to implement interventions or practices inwhich they have experience, support, and belief in overalleffectiveness (Fixsen, Blase, Naoom & Wallace, 2009). Al-though RtI implementation research has found that collabo-ration is important for teacher acceptance, teacher buy-in canbe difficult to gain (Mahdavi & Beebe-Franenberger, 2009).

Alberto and Troutman (2009) suggest the school andteacher environment should be examined to uncover whatteachers value and invoke strategies or interventions thatmay have existing support. After schools have resolved thetheoretical and ethical dimensions of systems change, thepragmatic aspects of implementation, including generaliza-tion and sustainability, can be addressed (Noell & Gansle,2009). Behavior change among all organizational partici-pants (i.e., teachers and administrators) is crucial (Sarason,1996), and must be accompanied by sustained environmen-tal supports that are responsive and adapted to inevitablechallenges (Grimes et al., 2006). Moreover, in order for thelong-term goal of sustained change to be realized, the ex-pected behaviors exhibited by key stakeholders must gen-eralize across situations and maintain over time (Sarason,1990; 1996).

82 BURNS ET AL.: SUSTAINABILITY OF RTI IMPLEMENTATION

There is an inexorable link between generalization andsustainability within educational reform (Hargreaves & Fink,2000). Generalization occurs when a learned behavior con-tinues to occur across time, setting, and target in the absenceof the conditions that promoted its acquisition (Stokes &Baer, 1977). Thus, generalization is at least a prerequisitefor sustainability, but it could be argued that promoting gen-eralization over time could provide a framework to addresssustainability because sustainability is the continued behav-ior over time after the conditions in which it was required areremoved or changed.

Stokes and Baer (1977) introduced a framework for as-sessing and programming for generalization and mainte-nance of behavior change. Prior to that publication, the mostfrequent method of considering generalization in behaviorchange programs was to “train and hope” (p. 351). In otherwords, new behaviors were trained and any generalizationacross settings, time, or responses were not actively planned;rather, it was hoped that generalization would occur. A re-cent survey of special education directors found that the mostcommon support for RtI implementation provided by statedepartments of education was short-term trainings and pro-fessional development (Werts, Lambert & Carpenter, 2009).Accordingly, RtI implementation could attempt to be gen-eralized through train and hope, but it will likely not besuccessful without sustained environmental support. How-ever, deliberate programming for generalization and mainte-nance of expected behaviors in a system of RtI could resultin successful outcomes and sustained actions. The processof programming for generalization of RtI implementationincludes the following techniques discussed by Stokes andBaer in 1977: (1) introduce to natural maintaining contin-gencies, (2) train sufficient exemplars, (3) train loosely, (4)program common stimuli, (5) mediate generalization, and (6)train to generalize.

The purpose of this article is to discuss each of these strate-gies within the context of implementation and sustainabilityof RtI and implications for practice in schools. The goal willbe to describe specific actions that schools can take to pro-mote generalization and maintenance of practices in order forRtI implementation to be sustained over time. In other words,we will discuss ways that school personnel can frontload im-plementation efforts to better assure sustainability. Table 1provides a succinct summary of the generalization strategiesand related practices for RtI sustainability. We will also pro-vide suggestions for future research, which will likely be theprimary outcome associated with these suggested strategiesand practices.

INTRODUCE TO NATURAL MAINTAININGCONTINGENCIES

Stokes and Baer (1977) stated that introducing naturallymaintaining contingencies is the most dependable way to ob-tain generalization, even though this strategy may not alwaysbe feasible. To generalize in this manner is to transfer thebehavioral control to the natural contingencies that operatein the environment where the practice will occur. Apply-ing naturally maintaining contingencies in training involves

teaching behaviors or practices and bringing them into con-tact with naturally existing contingencies for reinforcement.

Using naturally occurring contingencies to promote gen-eralization can take many varied forms. For example, imaginethat during a professional development session, teachers aretaught to examine student data and make instructional pro-gramming decisions based on the data. Now imagine that amonth later when they examine their students’ progress, thedata indicate that the most struggling students have made sub-stantial gains. Seeing those substantial gains may naturallyreinforce the practice of making instructional programmingdecisions based on student data. In this example, the instruc-tional leader might select specific examples of the data-basedinstructional programming that resulted in the substantialacademic gains for a sample of the students and could discussthe types of instructional programming decisions that wouldbe more and less likely to produce future academic gains.

The first step in planning for a sustainable RtI model atthe individual school level might be to have school person-nel implement the model within their daily practice (Fixsenet al., 2009), rather than having district or university person-nel handle the initial implementation. Despite the temptationto provide significant support during the initial implementa-tion of RtI, if school personnel are the ones who implementthe RtI-related practices, then they are likely to directly ex-perience the natural successes that result. Similarly, teachersshould be included in all aspects of planning and implement-ing RtI, including making intervention decisions, and doingso resulted in improved student outcomes (Lembke, Garman,Deno & Stecker, 2010). For example, teachers could createthe list of instructional practices and interventions for spec-ified skill deficits available for use at each tier of servicein their building. The list could take the form of a menuof evidence-based options and include evidence-based in-structional practices and interventions that teachers in thebuilding have used and found successful. A teacher may bemore likely to implement an instructional practice or inter-vention that s/he has found successful in the past becauses/he has witnessed the effect it had on producing academicgrowth and therefore has contacted the natural consequence,student success, which was produced by implementing thepractice or intervention.

Implementation of RtI should be considered within thecontext of what components are already in place and whatcomponents need to be established. If numerous componentsneed to be added, a format for establishing the model that al-lows individual teachers to make a relatively small number ofchanges to their practice at a time is advisable (Grimes et al.,2006). This approach allows teachers to come into contactwith naturally maintaining contingencies, whereas if they areforced to change numerous aspects of their practice at once,they are less likely to contact the reinforcing consequences ofany one of the practices (McIntosh et al., 2010). When sys-tems change is time-consuming and requires implementationof numerous novel practices, competition with existing, lesseffective practices presents a considerable challenge (Noell& Gansle, 2009). Alternately, schools might consider invit-ing teachers to be involved in or responsible for particularcomponents of RtI (e.g., screening, interventions) accordingto their interest (Johnson et al., 2012). Preference is related

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 83

TABLE 1Strategies for Generalization from Stokes and Baer (1977) and Accompanying Activities to Build Sustainability in Response to Intervention (RtI)

Implementation

Strategy Description Activities

Natural maintaining Teach the skill to be reinforced by naturally • Involve school personnel in implementation decisionscontingencies existing contingencies • School personnel implement interventions and assessments

• Use efficient data collection proceduresTrain sufficient exemplars Use numerous examples during training • Provide ongoing professional development in the core components/skill

sets of RtI• Use a broad range of examples of forms that RtI core components can

take (e.g., collecting progress monitoring data for a variety of academicskills)

• Train personnel to implement multiple aspects of the grade-level andproblem-solving team processes

Train loosely Expose learners to a diverse array of thecontexts or situations in which skill set is

• Train using a variety of contexts and situations in which the same set ofskills are required (e.g., monitor progress in multiple areas)

to be used • Use a broad range of examples (e.g., what teams are called, which datacollection tools are selected)

Program common stimuli Incorporate into training stimuli that arecommon across contexts or situations

• Use grade-level teams as professional learning communities to makedecisions at various tiers

• Configure teams (e.g., grade-level teams) of consistent members whowill address a variety of contexts and situations together

Mediate generalization Incorporate tools or strategies that the • Use implementation fidelity protocols and checklistslearner can readily use across contexts orsituations

• Provide continuous feedback to school personnel (e.g., team processes,intervention fidelity, assessment procedures)

Train to generalize Raise awareness of need for generalizationduring training and suggest use of trainedskill sets across contexts and situations

• Discuss how existing RtI practices contextualize into other areas ofpractice

to quality of reinforcement and if teachers are encouragedto participate in aspects of RtI that fit their preferences, theymay experience relatively higher-quality reinforcement fortheir participation.

Finally, response effort impacts the effects of naturallymaintaining contingencies of reinforcement. For example,the amount of data collected in an RtI model should notbe exorbitant, but rather focused on useful informationthat can be collected efficiently (Horner, Sugai & Todd,2001). Assessment procedures should be quick and easy,and yet result in sufficiently reliable data and valid decisions(e.g., curriculum-based measurement). When teachers areinvolved in collecting their own data, it allows them to seethe effects of their practice through a direct link to studentoutcomes (McIntosh et al., 2010). Moreover, previous RtI im-plementation efforts emphasized the importance of stream-lining data collection and giving the teachers responsibilityfor collecting the data (Johnson et al., 2012). However, teach-ers must view data collection and analysis as an investment(Horner et al., 2001), and the payoff of positive outcome datapresents natural reinforcement for teachers. If data reveal anabsence of positive outcomes for certain students, teachersare provided an efficient and effective means by which to in-form further instruction, and will see the benefits of programmodification for students as interventions are intensified anddata collection continues.

TRAIN SUFFICIENT EXEMPLARS

Training sufficient exemplars is described as one of the mostvaluable techniques for programming generalization (Stokes

& Baer, 1977). Teaching only a single exemplar limits theeffectiveness of the lesson to the teaching situation, whereasproviding additional exemplars across a variety of situationsis crucial for generalization of the skill set to occur acrossa variety of situations. To illustrate, in a special educationprogram, an instructor might teach how to use a vendingmachine. Such teaching necessitates some careful planningbecause there are a wide variety of vending machines, manyof which require different approaches. Some vending ma-chines require pushing the button that depicts the product,others require finding the code for the product and enter-ing into a keypad. Depositing money can take the form ofcoins, bills, or a combination, and the coin slot is sometimesvertical and sometimes horizontal. By exposing students tothese variations during training, they are more likely to ex-perience success when they use a vending machine whenthey are not with their teacher. Within the context of pro-fessional development, which is a crucial aspect of effectiveRtI implementation (Kratochwill et al., 2007), it is wise toprovide educators with several examples of potential imple-mentation models including structures for delivering qualitycore instruction for all students, a variety of screening andprogress monitoring tools, evidence-based interventions fortiered intervention delivery, and teaming strategies for data-based decision making. How these individual componentsare implemented within a school can vary depending on theschool’s model. Providing educators with a variety of ex-amples of these core components, as well as examples ofsuccessful RtI models in other schools or districts, can alloweducators to adapt and adopt an ideal model for the situationstheir setting presents, leading to a much greater probabilityof sustaining RtI within a given school.


Although schools are limited by the standardized assess-ments they are required to use with students with and withoutdisabilities, the screening and progress monitoring tools aretypically open to teacher discretion. Providing teachers withtraining and materials to monitor progress across content ar-eas (i.e., reading, writing, and math) and with various tools(e.g., oral reading fluency, timed mathematics probes) im-parts additional examples of efficient assessments of studentoutcomes, thus creating multiple ways from which teacherscan choose to monitor progress. Furthermore, varied exam-ples of monitoring frequency (e.g., weekly or bimonthly) anddata collection personnel (e.g., paraprofessionals, volunteers,or classroom teachers) provides teachers with additional op-tions. For example, screening or monitoring data might becompleted by a small cadre of individuals across grades anddays to limit disruptions to the classroom and instruction.Conversely, such data might also be collected in a unifiedapproach involving many individuals completing all class-rooms within a shorter time span.

Ensuring that teachers are knowledgeable of multipleevidence-based interventions will allow them to make in-formed intervention decisions for struggling students to re-ceive targeted interventions in appropriate groups. However,providing training in too many intervention approaches canbe counterproductive to maintaining naturally occurring con-tingencies and may overwhelm the teachers. Thus, it mightbe beneficial to train teachers and school personnel in in-tervention implementation within content areas, age groups,and academic needs, which may help promote a foundationfor a successful model and its generalization.

Training educators on various teaming strategies may beone of the most important considerations for RtI sustain-ability, particularly with frequent changes in staffing models,movement of administrators within a district, and teacherturnover. Many schools implementing RtI form grade-levelteams, which are strongly related to the quality of later prepa-rations for sustainability (Perkins et al., 2011). Although thefunction of grade-level teams can differ among schools, de-pending on the RtI model in place, they are often involved inexamining screening data for all students, analyzing progressmonitoring data, making informed intervention decisions re-garding struggling students, and discussing adaptations andmodifications to the model at each tier of instruction. Pro-viding schools with examples of successful grade-level teammodels and professional development of effective teamingstrategies will allow them to choose and adapt the best modelfitting their resources, increasing the sustainability of RtI overtime. Unfortunately, inconsistent implementation of school-based teams is well documented and a potential threat to RtIimplementation (Burns, Vanderwood & Ruby, 2005), whichreinforces the need for schools to train personnel with posi-tive examples before implementation begins.

TRAIN LOOSELY

Whereas training sufficient exemplars involves teaching insuch a way that individuals make appropriate adaptations andadjustments in their behavior (e.g., how to indicate a selectionwith any vending machine) given the specific requirements

of the context or situation, training loosely (Stokes & Baer,1977) refers to teaching a behavior or skill set such that it oc-curs in the presence of a variety of contexts and situations. Totrain loosely, an approach must be taken that exposes learnersto a diverse array of situations in which the same responsemight be expected. For example, in a classroom, a teachermight say, “Have a seat,” “Take a seat,” “Find your place,”or gesture toward a circle of chairs; in all cases, the expectedbehavior is for the student to sit down. In the previous sec-tion, we mentioned grade-level teams, which often functionto provide a forum and structure, as well as accountabilityfor analyzing progress monitoring data, making informed in-tervention decisions, and discussing necessary adjustmentsto the model at each tier of instruction. However, PSTs canalso play an important role in RtI models, especially withintier 3. PSTs go by a wide variety of names across the coun-try, including but not limited to Instructional Support Team,Instructional Leadership Team, Academic Leadership Team,Child Study Team, and Teacher Support Team. By inter-changeably using a variety of names for teams but pointingout their unifying function, the notion of problem-solvinginstruction and interventions within a team is trained loosely.The purpose of training loosely is to allow for respondingin a singularly appropriate manner in a variety of situationsthat differ superficially but are functionally equivalent. Thus,transfer of the targeted behavior to new situations is facil-itated by exposure to the many contextual dimensions thatmay vary.

The concept of training loosely can inform multiple as-pects important to the sustainability of RtI, including datacollection, intervention delivery, and teaming strategies foreffective decision making. School personnel must pay at-tention to the fit between the conceptual framework of aschool-wide program and the local, contextual variables ofa given school (McIntosh et al., 2010). While adherence tothe conceptual framework of RtI is necessary to increase theefficacy of the practice, acknowledgement of contextual fitis important to its sustainability within a given school en-vironment (Goldenberg, 2003). For example, a school maystrongly embrace a strengths-based approach to instructionalplanning. In this case, the term “PST” would likely be lessacceptable than the term “Instructional Leadership Team.”Increased flexibility of RtI implementation combined withan emphasis on local control may create the potential forRtI to sustain in a manner that is both building-based andconsistent with the general concept.

The function and makeup of PSTs might also allow forflexibility regarding how often the team meets, who is re-sponsible for leading the meetings, and the relationship be-tween team discussions and professional development. Forexample, some schools may use a designated leader whoorganizes and leads meetings, whereas flexibility and sus-tainability may be enhanced by having several individualswithin a school able to lead meetings at different times. Sim-ilarly, the data analysis completed by PSTs may serve as aspringboard for related professional development, or couldsupport already-implemented school-wide initiatives. Thisrelationship is often reciprocal and can buttress the sustain-ability of similar data-driven practices such as School-widePositive Behavior Interventions and Supports.


PROGRAM COMMON STIMULI

Programming common stimuli, another technique used totrain for generalization, involves incorporating in trainingstimuli that are essential features and therefore will likely bepresent in a variety of generalized situations (Stokes & Baer,1977). One example in school settings with students has beenthe use of peers as common stimuli to promote generalizationof desired social interactions across settings (Stokes & Baer,1976). Incorporating peers as common stimuli to train forgeneralization can be applied to professional developmentrelated to RtI.

The literature on professional development, particularlythe use of professional learning communities (PLCs), pro-vides an opportunity to utilize peers as common stimuli tobuild sustainability of RtI. It is increasingly clear that high-quality professional development in schools represents anessential link between teacher performance and student out-comes (Kratochwill et al., 2007). In a PLC, teachers worktogether in small groups on a particular topic to analyze andimprove school practices to enhance student learning. PLCsare composed of three “Big Ideas” (DuFour, 2004): (1) ensur-ing that students learn, (2) building a culture of collaboration,and (3) a focus on results. The mission of professional devel-opment in a PLC framework is not simply that students aretaught, but rather that they learn. When learning does not oc-cur for all students, a PLC will focus on improving teachingpractices to enhance student learning. To build a culture ofcollaboration, PLCs provide an ideal occasion to use peers ascommon stimuli to build sustainability. With a focus on re-sults, improving student achievement through collaborationbetween teachers becomes routine work for everyone in theschool. PLCs allow schools to “create a multi-tiered, coordi-nated, and collective response to support students” (DuFour,2011, p. 61).

Within RtI, teachers in grade-level teams comprise thePLCs. Teachers on a grade-level teamwork together to adoptspecific aspects of RtI. As new aspects of RtI are adopted, thelikelihood that a teacher will successfully implement new RtIcomponents is increased if it is done in the context and withthe support of the other teachers on the grade-level team. Thepresence of peer teachers can facilitate generalization by sim-ulating the environment—the grade-level team—in whichsuccessful adoption of the initial RtI components occurred.Research regarding professional development related to RtIfound that isolated training was not sufficient (Kratochwillet al., 2007). This seems particularly relevant to the sus-tainability of RtI, and the use of peers to program commonstimuli in professional development practices in schools canensure generalization and maintenance of the model.

MEDIATE GENERALIZATION AND TRAIN TOGENERALIZE

Two final ways to increase sustainability and generalizationof RtI are to: (1) build procedures into the RtI process thatwill increase the likelihood of generalization of desired be-haviors, and (2) directly discuss and ask for generalization.In mediated generalization, a response that is likely to be

used in new situations is established to promote generaliza-tion (Stokes & Baer, 1977). For example, to multiply poly-nomials, we are taught “FOIL”—first, outside, inside, last,which is the order in which the products are to be computed(Crawford, 1980). Thus, whenever one is confronted with apolynomial, use of FOIL will facilitate successful multiplica-tion of the polynomial in any situation. Within an RtI context,tools for individual teacher and program self-evaluation mayplay a mediating role in generalization of RtI components.These tools include checklists for fidelity of implementationof specific evidence-based practices (e.g., a reading interven-tion), and for implementation of various aspects of the RtIprocess more generally. Fidelity of implementation at boththe teacher and school levels should be evaluated to ensurethe effectiveness of RtI (Riley-Tillman & Burns, 2009).

Teacher-level implementation across RtI components andsettings can be measured through observations of imple-mentation fidelity of specific evidence-based practices inthe classroom using checklists developed by researchers orschool districts. For example, the St. Croix River EducationDistrict in Minnesota and Heartland Area Education Agencyin Iowa have developed checklists for assessing fidelity ofimplementation of specific instructional or intervention pro-grams (see Table 2). School-level evaluation tools are alsonecessary for measuring generalization and maintenance ofRtI over time. For example, the School-wide Evaluation Tool(SET; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd & Horner, 2001), was de-signed to evaluate implementation fidelity of School-widePositive Behavior Support. Data from the SET are reviewedby school teams and state-level teams to guide sustainabil-ity efforts at both levels (McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan &Sugai, 2010).

In addition to considering mediators, Stokes and Baer(1977) advise directly discussing generalization and suggest-ing that individuals generalize the desired behaviors or skillssets to other contexts or situations. Training to generalizeinvolves explicitly suggesting or reminding the implementer(e.g., teacher) to implement the RtI components in novel sit-uations. Within an RtI framework, professional developmentefforts should include discussions with staff of how exist-ing RtI skill sets, such as universal screening and data-baseddecision making, could be generalized to other areas of prac-tice. For example, in a school already implementing RtI inreading, school leaders might initiate discussions of how theRtI model could be expanded to include math or behavior.As generalization occurs, staff efforts should be reinforced.Reinforcing generalization when it happens results in quickwins for teachers and other RtI team members.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Although the recommendations made by Stokes and Baer(1977) are well grounded in research, the application to sus-taining RtI requires additional research. Schools are com-plex systems with several considerations when implement-ing change initiatives (Fixsen et al., 2009). Thus, researcherscould examine a method to best identify potential applica-tion (e.g., quality core instruction, screening and progressmonitoring tools, evidence-based interventions for tiered


TABLE 2Response to Intervention (RtI) Implementation Checklists

Resource Tool(s)

Evidence-Based Intervention Network http://ebi.missouri.edu/ Intervention protocols for reading, math, writing, andbehavior

Heartland Area Education Agency http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/idm/ Observation and permanent productcheckists.html treatment integrity checklists for academic interventions

National Center on Response to Intervention http://www. RtI Integrity Rubric and Worksheetrti4success.org/categorycontents/continuously_improving/page

Pennsylvania Department of Education http://www.pattan.net/category/ • Response to Instruction & InterventionEducational%20Initiatives/Response%20to%20Instruction%20and% (RtII) Readiness and Implementation20Intervention%20%28RtII%29 (Elementary): Self-Assessment Tool

• Secondary RtII Framework: Self-Assessment ToolPath to Reading Excellence in School Sites http://www. • Reading intervention protocols for all three tiers

cehd.umn.edu/reading/PRESS/default.html • Intervention implementation checklists• Professional development materials

RtI Action Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/ Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementationgetstarted/checklists-and-forms

Scientifically based research http://gosbr.net/ • Reading and math intervention protocols• Assessment tools

St. Croix River Education District http://www.scred. • Integrity checklists for reading interventionsk12.mn.us/School/Index.cfm/go:site.Page/Page:3/index.html

Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and PBIS evaluation checklists including:Supports (PBIS) http://www.pbis.org/evaluation/evaluation_ • School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET)

tools.aspx • Early Childhood System-wide Evaluation Tool: ProgramWide (EC SET-PW)

• Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT)

intervention delivery, and data-based decision-making mod-els) that matches the needs and circumstances of eachunique system. Second, research has found that school-basedproblem-solving teams were effective, but implementationintegrity of the process may have substantially reduced teameffectiveness (Burns & Symington, 2002), and implementa-tion integrity was rarely assessed in tier 1 (Hill et al., 2012).Moreover, unanticipated staffing changes can occur withinschools, which may result in a change in problem-solving andleadership teams. When team members leave, responsibilitieshave the potential to shift or be forgotten. Ensuring neces-sary components of the RtI process are in place throughoutchange is crucial to sustainability. Thus, additional researchis needed to examine issues such as the essential attributes ofan effective team and how to best measure integrity of coreinstruction.

Implementing multiple changes, such as training suffi-cient exemplars, training loosely, and programming commonstimuli, comes with additional difficulties that could providetargets for additional research. Moreover, future researcherscould examine the recommendations made here to determineboth effectiveness and a potential heuristic to prioritize thestrategies given characteristics of the schools.

CONCLUSION

Education has a long history of fads in which, as Ellis (2005)elegantly stated, “today’s flagship is often tomorrow’s aban-doned shipwreck” (p. 200). RtI has the potential to be thenext in a long line of innovations about which school person-

nel are initially enthusiastic and result in immediate gainsin student learning, but then implementation wanes as theinitial enthusiasm fades. Educational change is a slow anddifficult process, but it can result in lasting reform if schoolpersonnel consider long-term implications during the initialphases. Applying the framework for generalization duringinitial RtI implementation could potentially frontload sus-tainability efforts and provide a roadmap to sustainability.The goal of this article was to suggest potential methods toapply generalization strategies to RtI implementation efforts,primarily to provide directions for future research. Some ofthe strategies mentioned above would be easily implementedand some would require extensive research. However, giventhe increased frequency of RtI implementation, the researchseems warranted.

Acknowledgments

This publication was made possible in part by Grant NumberH325D090012 from the United States Department of Edu-cation Office of Special Education Programs. Its contents aresolely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent the official views of the USDE OSEP.

REFERENCES

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis forteachers (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Imple-mentation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.


Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of prereferral in-tervention teams: Systemic and student outcomes. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 40, 437–447.

Burns, M. K. (2007). RTI WILL fail, unless . . . .Communique, 35(5), 38–40.Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic

review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeduca-tional Assessment, 23, 381–394.

Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readinessof prereferral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model:Review of three levels of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 20,89–105.

Crawford, C. G. (1980). Math without fear. New York: New View-points/Vision Books.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community?” Educa-tional Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.

DuFour, R. (2011). Work together, but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan,92(5), 57–61.

Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed.). Larch-mont, NY: Eye on Education.

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Coreimplementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19,531–540.

Foster-Fishman, P. G., Nowell, B., & Yang, H. (2007). Putting the sys-tem back into systems change: A framework for understanding andchanging organizational and community systems. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 39, 197–215.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of specialeducation in a new continuum of general education placements andservices. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.

Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of interventionimplementation in assessing resistance to intervention. In S. Jimerson,M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response tointervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention(pp. 244–254). New York: Springer.

Goldenberg, C. (2003). Settings for school improvement. International Jour-nal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 7–16.

Grimes, J., Kurns, S., & Tilly, W. D. III. (2006). Sustainability: An enduringcommitment to success. School Psychology Review, 35, 224–244.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2000). The three dimensions of education reform.Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–34.

Hill, D. R., King, S. A., Lemons, C. J., & Partanen, J. N. (2012). Fidelity ofimplementation and instructional alignment in Response to Interven-tion research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 116–124.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Todd, A. W. (2001). “Data” need not be afour-letter word: Using data to improve schoolwide discipline. BeyondBehavior, 11, 20–22.

Johnson, E. S., Pool, J. L., & Carter, D. R. (2012). Lessons learned from atiered service delivery implementation project. Intervention In School& Clinic, 47, 139–143.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. (1999). Highversus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case formaintaining program fidelity. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 170–183.

Kratochwill, T. R., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Profes-sional development in implementing and sustaining multitier preven-tion models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychol-ogy Review, 36, 618–631.

Lembke, E. S., Garman, C., Deno, S. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). One ele-mentary school’s implementation of Response to Intervention. Reading& Writing Quarterly, 26, 361–373.

Mahdavi, J. N., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2009). Pioneering RTIsystems that work. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 64–72.

McIntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J. L., Ryan, C., & Sugai, G. (2010).Principles of sustainable prevention: Designing scale-up of school-widepositive behavior support to promote durable systems. Psychology inthe Schools, 47, 5–21.

Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educa-tional systems change to sustainable program implementation: Com-ing to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the Schools, 46,78–88.

Perkins, D. F., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Johnson, L. E., Chilenski,S. M., Mincemoyer, C. C., et al. (2011). Team factors that predict tosustainability indicators for community-based prevention teams. Eval-uation and Program Planning, 34, 283–291.

Riley-Tillman, T. C. & Burns, M. K. (2009). Single case design for measur-ing response toeducational intervention. New York: Guilford.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of school and the problem ofchange. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1976). Preschool peers as mutual generalization-facilitating agents. Behavior Therapy, 7, 549–556.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. W., & Horner, R. H. (2001). School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET). Eugene, OR: Educational and CommunitySupports.

Werts, M. G., Lambert, M., & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special ed-ucation directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32,245–254.

Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students withlearning disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets. Learning Dis-ability Quarterly, 28, 125–128.

About the Authors

Matthew K. Burns is a Professor of Educational Psychology, Coordinator of the School Psychology program, and Co-Directorof the Minnesota Center for Reading Research at the University of Minnesota. His research interests include response tointervention, using curriculum-based assessment for instructional design to determine academic interventions, and facilitatingproblem-solving teams.

Andrea M. Egan is a doctoral student in special education at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests includeassessment and intervention strategies for students with co-occurring academic and behavioral problems and methods toaddress these within a response to intervention framework.

Amy K. Kunkel is a graduate research assistant in Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her researchinterests include computer-assisted instruction and response to intervention.

Jennifer McComas, Ph.D., is a Professor with the Special Education Program in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Minnesota. Her current research interests include functional analysis and treatment for problem behaviorand academic skill deficits, the influence of the principles of behavior on learning, and the influence of social context on severeproblem behavior.


Meredith M. Peterson is a doctoral student in Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her research inter-ests include assessment and intervention strategies for students with behavioral problems within a response to interventionframework.

Naomi L. Rahn is a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology, Special Education at the University of Minnesota. Shehas over 15 years of experience in early childhood special education. Her research interests include naturalistic languageinterventions, response to intervention, and teacher preparation.

Jennifer Wilson is a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology, Special Education at the University of Minnesota. Sheholds a Director of Special Education license and has over 10 years of experience in the field. Her research interests includeresponse to intervention and teacher preparation.

Documents

Training for Generalization and Maintenance in RtI Implementation: Front-Loading for Sustainability