The California School Psychologist

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 55–66 | Cite as

Viewing Response-to-Intervention through an Educational Change Paradigm: What Can We Learn?

  • Frank J. Sansosti
  • Amity Noltemeyer


Response-to-Intervention (RtI), a framework for improving academic and behavioral outcomes for all students, can be viewed as a current example of an educational change initiative. Given the difficulties that some schools may be experiencing when implementing RtI effectively, it is important to examine prior educational change conceptualizations and research for factors that may facilitate or impede current educational reform. The purpose of this article is to (a) present RtI as a current educational reform initiative, (b) use Fullan’s (2007) theoretical model as a framework through which to present information related to educational change, and (c) provide suggestions regarding how such educational change literature can inform and improve the implementation and future sustainability of RtI in schools.


Response to Intervention Educational Reform Educational Change Systemic Consultation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J.F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D.J., Schrag, J., & Tilly, W.D. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2002). Facing the challenge of whole-school reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  3. Danzberger, P., Carol, L., Cunningham, L., Kirst, M., McCloud, B., & Usdan, M. (1987). School boards: The forgotten players on the education team. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 53–59.Google Scholar
  4. Datnow, A. (2006). Comments on Michael Fullan’s, “The future of educational change: System thinkers in action.” Journal of Educational Change, 7, 133–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1 & 2), 183–204.Google Scholar
  6. Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 701–12.Google Scholar
  7. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implication for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fullan, M.G. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education. Retrieved August 11, 2008 from
  11. Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.), New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fullan, M.G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gerber, M.M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. George, M.P., White, G.P., & Schlaffer, J.J. (2007). Implementing school-wide behavior change: Lessons fromthe field. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graczyk, P.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Small, M., & Zins, J. (2006). Serving all children: An implementation model framework. School Psychology Review, 35, 266–274.Google Scholar
  17. Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley & L. Danielson (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Gresham, F.M. (2006). Evolution of the Response-to-Intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. (pp. 10–24). New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  19. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, & potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Horner, R.H., & Sugai, G., (2005). School-wide positive behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. (pp. 359–390). In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.) Positive Behavior Support. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K, & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds) (2007). Handbook of Response to Intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  24. Knoff, H.M., & Batsche, G.M. (1995). Project ACHIEVE: Analyzing a school reform process for at-risk and underachieving students. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 579–603.Google Scholar
  25. McDermott, K.A. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83–89.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenholz, S. (1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure or educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Sarason, S. (1995). School change: The personal development of a point of view. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Speece, D.L., Case, L.P., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives. Learning Environments Research, 5, 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vernez, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L.T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from
  32. Weiner, H.M. (2003). Effective inclusion: Professional development in the context of the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 12–18.Google Scholar
  33. Yonezawa, S., & Datnow, A. (1999). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged students follow-up study: Examining the sustainability of research-based school reforms. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School Psychology ProgramKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations