Northwest

education

fall 2008 / Volume 14. Number 1

RTI

Tiered Instruction 

Goes Mainstream

Implementation with fidelity 12 Oregon’s statewide scale-up 14 RTI in high school 20
On the cover

Stevensville (Montana) Elementary teacher Valerie 

Pateman conducts a brief, timed assessment of a student’s 

fluency skills. Frequent progress monitoring is an essential 

component of the response to intervention (RTI) process. 

Although still often associated with special education, RTI’s 

approach to tiered instruction and intervention is gaining 

ground in the general education classroom.

Photo by Pam Voth
Northwest Education / fall 2008 1

8

20

30

14

features

6 Response to Intervention: An Overview

What is RTI? We provide a brief introduction to the essential elements of 

tiered instruction.

8 Teaching to the Child

Tiered instruction helps a struggling Idaho district get back on track.

12 Bridging the Implementation Gap

Dean Fixsen, a nationally recognized expert in implementation science, talks 

about how to get best practices into the classroom.

14 Tigard-Tualatin Sets the Standard for Oregon RTI 

Program

An Oregon district, recognized nationally for its RTI program, helps take the 

program statewide.

20 The “Wa-High Way”

An Eastern Washington high school uses tiered pathways to keep struggling 

students on the road to graduation.

26 Changing the Focus

In a small Washington school district, a pathbreaking elementary school 

combines RTI, professional learning communities, and a new math 

curriculum.

30 Balancing Act

Montana’s statewide scale-up of RTI includes plenty of room for local 

decision making. 

Northwest

education

contents / fall 2008 rti: tiered instruction goes mainstream Vol. 14 / No. 1
2 nwrel.org/nwedu/

departments

3 Forum

4 Editor’s Note

35 Research Brief

RTI Practices Seen as More Accurate Than 

Referrals

37 Voices

Working With the System

38 Region at a Glance

RTI in the Northwest: A Regional Roundup

39 End Note

40 NWREL News

NWRCC Helps Build, Support, and Sustain RTI

NWREL Well-Equipped To Evaluate RTI Programs

Flashback 

NWREL Products and Services

What the Research Says (or Doesn’t Say) 

Improve the focus of your professional development

On the Web

Northwest Education is available online in both PDF 

and HTML versions at www.nwrel.org/nwedu/. Look 

for Web exclusives, marked with .

Northwest Education is published three times a year by the 

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Past and current 

issues of the magazine are available at www.nwrel.org/nwedu/.

ISSN 1546-5020

Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Carol F. Thomas

Deputy Executive Officer

Dr. Robert E. Blum

Administrative Director, Development and Communications

Dave Wilson

Managing Editor

Rhonda Barton

Issue Editor

Bracken Reed

NWREL News Writer

Kate Fitzgibbon

Staff Photographer

Michael Heavener

Technical Editor

Eugenia Cooper Potter

Design

Denise Crabtree

Data Analyst

Richard Greenough

Library Support

Linda Fitch

Webmaster

Jeff Jones

Circulation

Jean DeYoung

Statement of Purpose

Northwest Education aims to promote a regional dialogue and to 

elevate teaching and learning by giving readers the best information, ideas, and personal stories from practitioners, researchers, and 

other experts. 

Copyright © 2008, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 

Articles and information in this publication may be reproduced 

and distributed without permission for nonprofit educational and 

professional development purposes. Please acknowledge NWREL

as the source.

Northwest

education
Northwest Education / fall 2008 3

NWREL Board of Directors

Jerry Colonna (Chair)

Superintendent, Beaverton School District (OR)

Rob Larson (Vice Chair)

Federal Liaison/Director, Oregon Leadership Network

Oregon Department of Education

Dr. Joan Parker Webster (Secretary-Treasurer)

Associate Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Dr. Terry Bergeson

Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction

Steve Bradshaw

Superintendent, Sitka Borough School District (AK) 

Doreen Brown (Regional Parent Representative)

Supervisor, Indian Education, Anchorage School District (AK)

Susan Castillo

Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction

Karanja Crews

Teacher, Portland Public Schools (OR)

Rubén Degollado 

Middle School Principal, Hillsboro School District (OR)

Dr. Joanne Erickson

Associate Professor, Montana State University

Jeff Estes

Manager, Office of Science Education Programs 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (WA)

Dr. Patrick Haggarty (Private School Representative)

Superintendent, Chief Diocesan Administrator

Diocese of Helena, Missoula (MT)

Jeri Harris

Teacher, Seattle School District (WA)

Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel

Superintendent, Renton School District (WA)

Dr. Jannette R. Hill

Chair, Division of Education

Lewis-Clark State College (ID)

Wendy Horman

School Board Member, Bonneville Joint School District (ID)

Jerry Keane 

Superintendent, Post Falls School District (ID)

Larry LeDoux

Alaska Commissioner of Education

Tom Luna

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction

Linda McCulloch

Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Dr. Richard McCullough (Ex-Officio)

Assistant Professor, Seattle University (WA)

Dr. Bruce Messinger

Superintendent, Helena Public Schools (MT)

Dr. Geoffrey Mills

Dean, Southern Oregon University 

Dr. Perla Rodriguez (Parent Representative)

Elementary Principal, Forest Grove School District (OR)

Mo Sanders

Principal, Soldotna Montessori Charter School (AK)

Corri Smith

Teacher, Great Falls School District (MT)

Dr. Tom Stritikus

Associate Dean, College of Education 

University of Washington

Colleen Thompson

Teacher, Riverside Elementary School (ID)

Carol VanDerWege

Teacher, Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (AK)

Jeff Weldon (Regional Business Representative)

Attorney, Felt, Martin, Frazier & Jacobs PC (MT)

forum

Nurturing Student Engagement

The theme of your spring-summer 

2008 issue of Northwest Education (Student Engagement Takes Center Stage) 

is excellent. The need for schools and 

districts to engage students in their 

education is critical to the success of 

our public schools as we strive to develop critically thinking, compassionate, and involved citizens. The articles 

you used demonstrated a wide variety 

of methods that are proving to be successful engaging students and are to be 

lauded. 

The only exception I bring to your 

attention is the noticeable omission of 

Dr. Philip Schlechty as a reference on 

the meaning and use of engagement 

as the centerpiece for school improvement. Since 1988 Dr. Schlechty and his 

Center for Leadership in School Reform have worked with school districts 

and school leaders across the country 

to transform schools from organizations that produce compliance and attendance to organizations that nurture 

attention and commitment at all levels 

of the system. Two of Dr. Schlechty’s 

books worthy of citing in any discussion of student engagement are Shaking 

Up the Schoolhouse (2001) and Working 

on the Work: An Action Plan for Teachers, 

Principals, and Superintendents (2002), 

both published by Jossey-Bass. I think 

you will find his definition of student 

engagement and the process for a system to become engagement-focused 

very insightful. 

Thanks, and keep up the good 

work! 

Dr. Frank Hewins

Superintendent

Franklin Pierce Schools 

Tacoma, Washington 

We want to hear from you! Send your 

letters to the editor, comments on current and past issues, article ideas, and tips 

on places where good things are happening to nwedufeedback@nwrel.org. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.
4 nwrel.org/nwedu/

editor‘s note

© 2008, Adobe Image Library

This issue of Northwest Education was 

supposed to be about special education. 

In researching the topic, however, we 

found that the special education–related subject most on educators’ minds 

was an instructional framework called 

response to intervention (RTI).

As we dug deeper, we found that many educators did not 

consider RTI to be a special education issue. In fact, some 

people we spoke to were vehement in their opinion that RTI 

was a general education—not a special education—initiative, 

and should be viewed in that context. Those same people often suggested that RTI should stand for response to instruction, to emphasize its general education focus.

How can a subject be both the most important thing happening in special education and yet, to many, not a special 

education initiative at all? That paradox, it turns out, is at the 

heart of the matter. As some view it, there is a struggle going 

on for the soul of special education, and perhaps the soul of 

public education itself. 

For the record, this issue of Northwest Education is solely 

about RTI in the general education classroom. You will find 

very little in it that refers specifically to special education or, 

for that matter, to a struggle for the soul of public education—at least not on the surface. Read closely and you may 

catch a glimpse. 

In our Q&A interview with Dean Fixsen (page 12), a wellknown research scientist who specializes in getting research 

into practice, he refers to RTI as part of “a huge change in 

philosophy for the education system.”

It’s a point echoed by Gary Germann, the codeveloper of 

the AIMSWeb progress monitoring system often used in RTI 

programs. “What a shame it will be, and what an opportunity 

lost,” Germann said in a 2007 interview with EdNews.org, “if 

RTI becomes another way to define LD [learning disabled] 

or a ‘pre-referral’ intervention strategy ... RTI is a new way of 

doing business, not a new way of identifying LD.”

For now, RTI remains linked to special education due to 

its endorsement in the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the fact that the new 

National Center on Response to Intervention is funded by 

a $14.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s office of special education programs. RTI’s biggest supporters—those, such as Germann, making the case that RTI 

is about improving instruction for all students, rather than a 

way to identify interventions for a few—tend to come from a 

background in special education. 

How is RTI a huge paradigm shift for public education? 

Germann put the new philosophy succinctly in the EdNews 

interview: “The responsibility for student learning rests with 

the people responsible for instruction. It serves little purpose 

to put the responsibility for lack of learning on the home, 

readiness, economic disadvantages, the child, or the disability. 

All problems of learning require instructional solutions.” 

In the stories offered here, you’ll find examples of RTI 

at the elementary level and at the high school level; as part 

of a comprehensive reading program and as part of a math 

program. You’ll read about the Tigard-Tualatin district in Oregon, which has been a national leader in the use of RTI in 

a general education environment; and about the White River 

School District in Washington, which is just beginning to test 

the waters. 

In every one of these stories you’ll find teachers and administrators addressing—even embracing—what Germann 

has called “the natural diversity of the classroom” by using 

RTI to meet the instructional needs of every student, and doing so almost entirely in the general education classroom. In 

the Northwest, RTI is indeed moving into the mainstream. 

We’ll have to wait and see if it wins the struggle for the soul 

of public education. 

—Bracken Reed, reedb@nwrel.org 
5

Northwest education Features

fall 2008 / Vol. 14. No. 1

A NWREL expert defines RTI essentials 6

A struggling Idaho district embraces tiered instruction 8

A national expert offers RTI implementation advice 12

An Oregon district plays a lead role in statewide scale-up 14

Tiered pathways help high school students achieve 20

A small Washington district combines RTI with K–5 math 26

A Montana elementary school makes RTI its own 30

rti:

tiered instruction

goes mainstream
6 nwrel.org/nwedu/

 Response 

To 

I ntervention

An Overview

By Jennifer Stepanek

Response to intervention 

(RTI) is a framework for improving educational outcomes 

that focuses on monitoring student learning so as to modify instruction and provide interventions 

that are matched to students’ needs. Interest in RTI is growing in the Northwest region and the nation because it 

is emerging as a promising approach 

to ensuring effective instruction for all 

students.

Schools have typically approached 

the problems of struggling students by 

identifying students with learning disabilities and determining their eligibility for special education services. In 

such a system, students are required to 

show a deficit before they are eligible 

to receive specialized services. Until 

there is enough evidence of this deficit, 

students usually continue to fall further 

and further behind. 

This system has been widely characterized as a “wait to fail” model. Many 

schools do not assess children for specific learning or behavior problems until the third grade. At this point, it is too 

late to make use of early intervention 

strategies, which have demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of learning disabilities.

Using RTI means that schools 

look for solutions to academic and 

behavioral problems by making adjustments to the learning environment. Instead of focusing their attention on identifying deficiencies within students who 

are struggling, teachers focus first on 

creating classrooms and implementing 

practices that will accelerate learning.

The central practice of RTI is measuring how students respond to instruction and adjusting as needed. This 

may sound straightforward, and many 

teachers may feel that this doesn’t appear to be an innovation. But RTI is an 

effort to make the measurements more 

systematic and accurate, and the adjustments more precise. For example, 

teachers are able to use assessments to 

find out both how well students are 

performing and the rate at which they 

are making gains. The results of the assessments provide data that are used to 

identify research-based interventions.

RTI is typically implemented as a 

three-tiered system. The first tier is the 

core curriculum and general classroom 

instruction. Assessments are used to 

identify students who are not learning at the expected rate for their grade 

level. These students receive more specialized interventions in the second tier. 

The services they receive are designed 

to improve their performance and prevent them from falling farther behind. 

Progress monitoring is used to make 

sure that the interventions are having 

the intended impact on student learning, with increasingly intensive strategies used for students who do not show 

progress. If the tier two interventions 

are not successful, students receive 

more intensive individualized interventions in tier three. Students who do not 

demonstrate improvements typically 

undergo a multidisciplinary evaluation 

to identify specific learning disabilities. 

While a three-tiered model is the most 

common, some sites use models that 

have additional tiers.

There are many components that 

are necessary to support the three tiers 

of RTI. One aspect of RTI that makes 

it challenging to implement is that the 

framework does not involve one practice or strategy but multiple processes. 

The following are some of the components that must be in place for RTI to 

be effective:
Northwest Education / fall 2008 7

Research-based core curriculum 

and instruction. In a tiered system that 

works as intended, the first tier must 

be effective for a majority of students. 

Some models have imposed a baseline 

that the core program should be effective for at least 80 percent of students. 

When a larger proportion of students 

is struggling, there is evidence that the 

core program needs to be improved.

Assessment tools. Universal screening 

tools are used to identify student learning needs. Progress monitoring tools are 

needed to track both the amount and the 

rate of growth in each student’s performance. In addition to the assessments, 

schools need to have a data management 

system in place that allows them to analyze test data and produce reports that 

are meaningful and useful for school 

staff members.

Research-based interventions.

To support students in tiers two 

and three, teachers must have 

a variety of interventions that 

can be targeted to students’ 

needs. Typical tier two 

interventions include 

supplemental instruction and small-group 

tutoring. Tier three 

interventions might involve more 

modeling and corrective feedback or 

providing incentives. Assessment data 

from progress monitoring help teachers track the success of the different interventions and to make adjustments in 

the services for students.

Fidelity measures. To ensure that the 

data reflect the success of the interventions, schools also need tools to measure the fidelity of implementation. 

These tools make certain that any lack 

of progress that students may demonstrate is the result of a mismatch with 

the intervention rather than ineffective 

implementation of the intervention by 

the teacher or service provider.

Teaming. A collaborative approach 

among school personnel is another 

important component of implementing RTI. Teachers, school 

psychologists, administrators, and 

other specialists work together 

to make decisions about how 

best to serve students. They 

analyze and interpret student data, develop and 

identify interventions, 

and monitor implementation and student progress.

Parent involvement. Parents are key 

members of the school-based teams 

and are included in the decision-making progress. Teachers are able to share 

the results of progress monitoring with 

parents and keep them informed about 

their children’s performance and how 

any challenges are being addressed.

The number and complexity of 

these components are a reason to be 

cautious but optimistic about response 

to intervention. While it may be a complex system, it is also one that many 

districts have been able to implement 

with success. The research base for RTI 

is accumulating evidence of the positive outcomes that these schools have 

achieved. (More information about 

research related to RTI is provided in 

the Research Brief, page 35.) There is 

reason to believe that with administrators and teachers who are willing to put 

in the time and the hard work, RTI has 

the potential to change schools for the 

better and improve outcomes for all 

students. n

Image © Lee Pettet/iStockphoto
8 nwrel.org/nwedu/
Northwest Education / fall 2008 9

Teaching 

to the 

Chi

In a district in improvement status, 

ld

RTI helps some schools achieve AYP. 

Story by Rhonda Barton

Photos by Darin Oswald

CALDWELL, Idaho—When LaVaun Dennett took over as principal of Van Buren Elementary School four years ago 

she knew she faced a tough challenge. 

The high-poverty school in an aging 

building had a reputation for being 

“difficult.” Dennett admits, “People 

said the kids were difficult, the staff was 

difficult, and there was an attitude that 

‘we’re teaching the best we can, so it 

must be the fault of the kids that we’re 

not doing well.’” Van Buren had never 

made adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

and the conventional wisdom was that 

it never would.

Today, Dennett can boast that her 

school met AYP last year. In fact, five of 

the districts’ 10 schools earned that distinction for the first time in two years. 

Included in that group were three elementary schools—Van Buren, Washington, and Sacajawea—that pioneered 

response to intervention (RTI) in this 

rural-suburban district about 30 miles 

east of Boise. Dennett and others say 

they can’t give RTI total credit for the 

turnaround, but it definitely played a 

role. That’s especially true at Van Buren, historically the district’s lowest 

performing school and one that made 

twice the growth of any other school 

last year.

A Push for Improvement

In the past, Caldwell School District 

#132 has struggled with high staff 

turnover and burgeoning student enrollment. In the last six years the district 

saw three superintendents come and 

go, and had more than three principals 

at half the schools. The district also had 

difficulty retaining its best teachers. 

Since the early 1990s, the student population almost doubled to 6,400—with 

almost three-quarters of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. 

In addition, about one in five students 

have limited English proficiency.

The district was placed in improvement status in 2006–2007, when Idaho 

changed its state assessment and increased its proficiency goals. Clearly, it 

was time to shake things up. The new 

superintendent, Roger Quarles, set 

about doing just that.

More than 80 teachers, staff, parents, 

and community members helped craft a 

strategic plan that focused on creating a 

“wave of success” that would pull along 

all students. As part of the improvement 

efforts of the new central office team, 

75 teachers left and were replaced with 

new staff considered to be more in tune 

with districtwide priorities. To allow for 

collaborative teacher time, the district 

shortened the school year but added 30 

minutes to the school day. The district 

placed instructional coaches in each 

school. And, Ila Cockrum, the director 

of special services, floated the idea of 

using RTI as a way to improve student 

achievement with the district allowing 

each school to mold the program to its 

own personality.

Together, all those steps have produced results. But, says Director of 

Elementary Schools Jonathan Cline, 

RTI has dramatically shifted Caldwell’s 

focus. “It’s helped us step away from 

teaching to the masses toward teaching 

to the child,” says Cline. “We’ve really 

changed and gotten away from the old 

‘just keep teaching them and they’ll 

learn.’” 
 “A Different Way To Operate” 

Van Buren, Washington, and Sacajawea 

volunteered to become Caldwell’s first 

cohort of RTI schools, freeing teams to 

immerse themselves in the RTI process. Washington Principal Sherawn 

Reberry stepped up because “I liked the 

idea that we might be able to do better 

with students early on: looking at the 

students, prescribing what they need, 

and giving it to them immediately 

rather than having to wait.” In addition 

to Reberry, the initial Washington RTI 

team included an instructional coach, 

four grade-level teachers, a counselor, 

the special education teacher, and the 

school psychologist. The group spent a 

year in state-sponsored trainings before 

fully implementing RTI last year. This 

year, the school is continuing the process with a little fine tuning. 

Less than a week into the 2008–2009 

school year, paraeducators, the Title I 

teacher, and the English language 

learner teacher are in the midst of 

benchmarking all of Washington’s 515 

students. Depending on the results, the 

bottom quartile of students will undergo interventions in the classroom and 

weekly progress monitoring. If students do not make adequate progress, 

they’ll receive additional “pull-out” or 

“push-in” instruction from the Title I 

or ELL teacher. “The interventions are 

fluid and will change each week based 

on the assessments,” remarks Reberry, 

who meets with the schoolwide RTI 

team three times a month to review individual students’ progress. “We don’t 

operate the way we used to, waiting to 

see if this child is behind and then getting him into special ed.” Of the 20 students who received intensive interventions last year, only two were ultimately 

referred to special education. 

Even though Washington is not officially a Reading First school, many of 

the literacy techniques and curricula 

are borrowed from that program. In 

Mrs. Taggart’s fifth-grade classroom, 

for example, students start the day with 

a 90-minute whole group reading block 

using the Open Court curriculum. The 

class reads aloud in unison, stopping to 

respond to comprehension strategies—

such as predicting and summing up—

that are prominently displayed on the 

blackboard. Later in the day, an hour is 

devoted to differentiated literacy workshops. Two paraprofessionals work with 

the “mid-” to “high-level” students, 

while Taggart concentrates on the 

lowest performers. The same pattern is 

followed throughout the school. 

Reberry is a constant visitor in the 

classroom. “I need to make sure, as the 

principal, that the teachers are doing 

what’s prescribed for those students: 

that they’re working with them during 

at least part of that workshop intervention; that the Title I and ELL teachers 

are doing what they need to be doing; 

and that the instructional coach is in 

and out of the classrooms, making sure 

everyone is using the programs with fidelity,” she says. Predictably, that doesn’t 

leave a lot of time for everything else 

required of a principal. Reberry laughingly admits her administrative work 

gets done “from 4:30 to 6 p.m.” 

Finding Time To Collaborate

At Washington, teachers meet in 

grade-level teams for one hour each 

week with the instructional coach and 

a second hour a week with just their 

grade-level team members. At Van Buren, Principal Dennett has arranged 

the school day to allow for even more 

collaborative time. Pulling out a master schedule with a rainbow of colored 

squares, Dennett explains that she uses 

“specials” such as physical education, 

computer, library, and music to create 

a daily 45-minute period for all teachers to meet and talk about improving 

instruction in their grade levels. Twice 

a month, the teachers gather in crosslevel teams, either with the grade above 

or below their own.

An occasional staff meeting focuses 

on “nuts and bolts,” but typically Dennett handles routine business with 

Promoting a Positive School Climate

RTI isn’t just about academics, but behavioral issues as well. As Idaho RTI Coordinator 

Nancy Thomas Price points out, “Learning and desirable behavior go hand in hand. In 

Caldwell, as in many districts, [paying] attention to early intervention and addressing academic needs can ward off behavior that may be caused by academic frustration.”

At Caldwell’s Washington Elementary School, a Positive School Climate Program operates alongside tiered instruction. It involves teaching expected behaviors, rewarding 

students who adhere to the rules, and holding offenders accountable. 

In a letter sent home at the beginning of the school year, Principal Sherawn Reberry 

alerts parents that they may hear their children use the word “refocus.” The school uses 

refocus time “when a student’s behavior interferes with his or her learning or the learning 

of others.” When a child is given a refocus time, she’s placed in a quiet area in her classroom, another classroom, or the office. She’s then asked to think about the inappropriate 

behavior and suggest an alternative, either orally or in writing.

If a child has been “refocused” three times for inappropriate behavior, the teacher will call 

the student’s parents. If a fourth refocus occurs, the student will be assigned time to make up 

missed assignments and will be reinstated in the class when that work is completed. 

Using parent input, school staff developed a list of “absolutes” or behaviors that will 

not be tolerated under any circumstances and are cause for suspension, either in-school 

or at home. These include fighting, harassment, and weapons. Teachers are devoting time 

to a discussion of the absolutes with students, along with an explanation of the refocus 

process. At the same time, staff members will emphasize specific lessons on learning 

desirable behaviors. 

10 nwrel.org/nwedu/

Principal Sherawn Reberry says RTI has 

helped reverse an upward trend in special 

education referrals at her school.
Northwest Education / fall 2008 11

messages printed on the teachers’ daily 

check-in sheet. Using team meetings to 

focus on curriculum and instructional 

strategies “is the best staff development 

I’ve found,” says Dennett. “[There’s] 

time to just sit down and talk specifically about what kids need and where do 

we get the help.” Sometimes that help 

is easily within reach: Dennett will frequently suggest that a teacher observe 

in a colleague’s classroom or she’ll ask 

district or school staff to share their 

expertise in a specific area.

Like Washington, most of the tiered 

instruction at Van Buren focuses on 

reading. However, in response to what 

Dennett calls “horrible” writing scores, 

a half-hour per day of differentiated 

writing instruction was added to the 

schedule. Tiered math instruction is 

also offered, especially in the upper 

grades. “[With RTI] we look at everything—their reading, their math, their 

social skills: We’re really trying to get a 

complete picture,” Dennett points out. 

“They may just need help with reading 

or math, but nine times out of 10, they 

need help with everything.” 

Providing help as early as possible is 

a priority at Van Buren. One way that’s 

accomplished is by using title money to 

create two all-day kindergarten classes, 

in addition to the three half-day classes 

funded by the district. 

Every kindergarten student is tested 

each week with skill levels noted in a 

number of areas. If a child in the halfday kindergarten needs more help, he 

or she may be moved to the full-day 

class. “We call the parents and say, 

‘Guess what? We have a wonderful 

resource for you. Your kid is going to 

do so well, he’s going to get to come 

to school all day.’ If a kid in the all-day 

class has a breakthrough, then we call 

the parent and say, ‘Time to celebrate! 

Your child did so well he only needs to 

be here half-day!’”

Dennett concedes that she’d rather 

provide all-day kindergarten for all students. But, given the scarce resources, 

this has proved to be the next best 

thing. “At the start of school, hardly 

any of our kids are proficient at beginning kindergarten skills. By the end of 

the year, pretty much 100 percent are. 

That gives our first-grade team a start 

to build on,” she notes.

Making RTI Fit 

Three more Caldwell elementary 

schools have adopted RTI this year 

and the district is looking at how to extend the process to the secondary level. 

The fact that RTI varies slightly from 

school to school is one of the hallmarks 

of the process. “The neat thing about 

Caldwell is that different schools use 

their resources differently,” remarks 

Idaho RTI Coordinator Nancy Thomas 

Price. “They adhere to the essential 

components of RTI, but put their individual stamp on it based on their staff 

and demographics.”

Thomas Price worked in Caldwell 

as a consulting teacher and supported 

the schools in their RTI implementation. This fall she’s taken on that task at 

the state level. Thomas Price will work 

with the 210 Idaho schools using RTI 

to ensure that they’re implementing it 

with fidelity. She’ll also help schools 

that haven’t yet jumped on the RTI 

bandwagon to get started. 

Perhaps some will be encouraged by 

the example of Van Buren Elementary: 

a school that ultimately proved the naysayers wrong. “Van Buren has continued 

to refine its program, and here they are 

making AYP,” says Thomas Price. “They 

persevere, make good use of their resources, collaborate, and have good assessment in place for all students.” Taking a page from the RTI playbook, the 

Caldwell schools are identifying their 

strengths, shoring up their weaknesses, 

and building on success. n

According to Director of Elementary Schools 

Jonathan Cline, each school is free to adapt the 

RTI model to its own needs. 

At Van Buren Elementary, getting sent to the office is considered a reward rather than a punishment because of Principal LaVaun Dennett’s nurturing relationship with students.
12 nwrel.org/nwedu/

Dean Fixsen is a senior scientist at the FPG Child Development 

Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He 

is also the codirector of the National Implementation Research 

Network (NIRN), which recently received a five-year, nearly $5 

million federal grant to establish a State Implementation and 

Scaling-Up of Evidence-Based Practices Center. His work at NIRN 

has made him a key figure in the national expansion of RTI. He 

spoke with Northwest Education from his office in Carrboro, 

North Carolina. 

A lot of your work focuses on how to close the “implementation gap”—the gap between what research has 

shown to be effective and what actually gets put into 

practice. That work looks at many different fields, but does it translate easily to education?

The good news is that across widely disparate domains—

from engineering to mental health to education—there are 

many, many commonalities. This gives us real hope that we 

can actually come up with a science and a set of practices 

that are unique to implementation—that is, practices that 

can help us close this gap between research and practice no 

matter what the field. At the level of implementation science 

and practice, there is great generality. And on the plus side, in 

public education there is some regularity to most of the K–12 

system. The structure of schools tends to be more alike than 

different as you go from one place to another. Once we’re 

able to discover better ways of doing things in a set of schools, 

for example, the chance of being able to generalize that goes 

up dramatically.

The idea of an implementation gap implies that the research exists. 

Some of the criticism about the No Child Left Behind Act and its 

requirement to choose research-based programs and practices, is that 

the research really isn’t there—that you have a What Works Clearinghouse, for example, with very little in it. What’s your perspective 

on the amount of available education-related research? 

For an education system that consumes billions of dollars 

a year and has an impact on every child in the United States, 

we know—in an experimental sense—very little about it. We 

do know a lot more than we used to, but I think the people 

who are saying that there is precious little out there—they’re 

correct, relatively speaking. I don’t come from an education 

background, but when I began taking a careful look at the 

field I was very surprised to see how little experimentation 

had been done. We really do not have a sound experimental 

base for the education system that we have in place right now, 

nor do we have a very good base for making the changes that 

we are about to make. In that sense, it’s more about flying by 

the seat of our pants rather than being directed by the data. 

Is the research base for a particular program—for example, response 

to intervention (RTI)—the most important consideration for a school 

or district that is trying to implement it? 

Well, that’s an interesting question, and my view is almost 

heresy within the current evidence-based program movement. From an implementation point of view, it doesn’t really 

matter whether or not there are a whole lot of data to support 

the change that we’re contemplating. We could have 20 or 

30 randomized control trials to draw on or we could have 

none—from an implementation point of view, I really don’t 

care. I do for other reasons, but in this context I really don’t. 

What I do care about is: For an intervention that we intend to 

try, how clearly has this intervention been described? Do we 

really know what “it” is? In my view, we need to know what 

the critical features of the intervention are, because those 

critical features are what we want to see every teacher doing in every classroom. And then those critical features have 

to be operationalized. We have to know how we’re going to 

put them into action. We have to be able to teach the teachers and staff and principals how to use those critical features 

effectively to benefit students. So, from an implementation 

perspective, those things are way more important to me than 

having existing randomized control trials. And I think we do 

have a very good understanding of what RTI is about, what its 

critical features are. In terms of implementation, it’s a work 

in progress.

bridging the implementation gap

A Conversation With Dean Fixsen 

Q:
Northwest Education / fall 2008 13

The benefit of having the research, of course, is that you 

have a better sense that if we do these things—if we understand the critical features, we know how to teach it, we know 

how to monitor it, we implement it with fidelity—then we 

are very likely going to get a positive outcome for kids. That is 

obviously good to know. But without it, all is not lost. 

In the area of implementation, the idea of readiness—a school or district’s readiness for the proposed change—is often mentioned. What 

kind of readiness is necessary to implement RTI? 

RTI will not work under just any circumstance. People 

have to understand it on two levels, and the second is where 

things often go off track. They have to understand not only 

what RTI is, but also the changes that have to be made in 

order to implement it effectively. And implementation is the 

part that most people don’t include in their planning or their 

thinking. They focus on the intervention, and they don’t even 

think about whether they have the capacity to actually do it. 

There are a lot of things involved in making good use of RTI, 

from the classroom level to the state level. For instance, a 

school has got to have a strong core curriculum in place. If 

they don’t, RTI won’t help them. 

In your experience, what is the 

most difficult part of implementing RTI successfully? 

A big factor with RTI is 

that, as you head toward the 

top of the pyramid, toward 

the students that need very 

intensive interventions, you 

increasingly have to interact 

with external systems such as 

the child welfare system, children’s mental health, or the 

housing department. There 

are a lot of people that end up 

getting involved in schoolrelated activities. And you run 

into the exact same problem 

all over again: Do you want to use just any child welfare program, any mental health program, any day care or whatever? 

Or are we looking for effective, evidence-based programs 

for those service organizations as well? Are we going to hold 

those people accountable for helping our kids? It’s a whole 

new set of responsibilities for a school to take on. There’s 

nothing simple about the top of the pyramid, believe me. 

A lot of the focus on RTI right now is about defining it as a general 

education initiative, not just a special education initiative. Do you 

see RTI as a process that is effective for all students, not just special 

education students?

Absolutely. RTI is a huge change in philosophy for the 

education system, and one that is extremely important. The 

prevailing philosophy in education has been that it’s up to 

parents and society to deliver a teachable child to the school. 

And if that child is not teachable in my classroom, given the 

way I teach, then there must be something wrong with that 

student, and therefore that student needs to be excluded in 

some way—needs to be put in some form of special education. That fundamental philosophy is firmly ingrained, and 

it has major implications for all students, not just those who 

might unnecessarily end up in special education. 

RTI represents a real shift in thinking. RTI asks teachers 

to take responsibility. They have to say, “If this student is not 

learning, then I need to change my behavior. I need to change 

my approach to educating that child. I need to change my curriculum. I need to break this class into smaller groups. I need to 

find the right intervention for this student. I am accountable.” 

RTI is all about holding the teacher accountable for teaching 

every student in that classroom. That is huge. But we cannot 

expect teachers to be accountable for educating children without also giving them the tools and the training and the help 

to do that. Making full use of the science and best practices of 

implementation will be very important for RTI or any other 

intervention designed to benefit students. n

RTI represents a real shift in thinking. 

RTI asks teachers to take responsibility. They have to say, “If this student is 

not learning, then I need to change my 

behavior. I need to change my approach 

to educating that child. I need to change 

my curriculum. I need to break this class 

into smaller groups. I need to find the 

right intervention for this student. I am 

accountable.”
14

Tigard, Oregon—Since 2006, Erin Lolich and other Tigard-Tualatin School 

District (TTSD) staff members have been meeting with district teams from 

around the state of Oregon to help them achieve large-scale instructional 

change. Through a unique agreement with the Oregon Department of Education, TTSD trains these districts to implement response to intervention, 

or RTI. TTSD is well-suited to its leadership role in the Oregon Response 

to Intervention Project (OrRTI), as the state’s program is called, having 

implemented RTI since 2001, three years before the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act included the approach as an option for 

identifying students with learning disabilities. 

Lolich, TTSD’s associate director of student services for RTI, says OrRTI 

provides services to more than just students with learning disabilities. “RTI is 

really a systems approach to instruction,” she explains. “You can’t make it work 

without including general and special education. Yet legally, RTI applies only 

to the criterion for identifying students for special education.” 

Cited recently on the front page of Education Week for its collaborative 

effort with the state department, the 12,000-student district finds itself 

flooded with visitor requests to observe RTI in action. In fact, the district 

created a video with classroom footage and school and district staff interviews. To date, 29 Oregon district teams have received tools, training, and 

ongoing support from TTSD, with the state eager to see more schools in 

the state’s 197 districts given the same opportunity. 

Becoming an RTI Leader

In the early 1990s, a team of school psychology and special education staff 

members, led by then-school psychologist Carol Sadler, did some pioneering work. Collaborating with researchers from the University of Oregon, 

they piloted the use of curriculum-based measurement as a central component in the evaluation, identification, and monitoring process for special 

education. A few years later, special education director Petrea Hagen-Gilden 

and Sadler contributed to a book on the use of locally normed curriculumbased measures as an alternative to the IQ/achievement discrepancy model 

for identification. When the more generalizable Dynamic Indicators of Basic 

Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) came out in 1999, the district quickly signed 

on to pilot the measures, seeing them as a potentially valuable tool to better 

identify and serve the youngest students struggling to learn reading skills 

(see sidebar, p. 18). 

“Finally, we had a way to see what’s really going on with young children 

before third grade,” says Sadler, now an educational consultant. In spring 

2000, based on the district’s experience with DIBELS and nearly five years 

of implementing positive behavior support, TTSD was awarded U.S. Department of Education funding to develop and implement a unique approach to reading and behavior instruction, called Effective Behavioral and 

Instructional Support. This award from the Office of Special Education 

Programs was one of only six similar projects funded nationally that year. 

There was little talk of RTI at the time, but essentially, this program represents the district’s rendering of RTI. 
15

Tigard-Tualatin 

Sets the Standard 

for Oregon 

RTI Program

Video and trainings help an Oregon district 

spread its RTI experience.

Story by Jacqueline Raphael

Images by oregon street studios
16 nwrel.org/nwedu/

Initial work starting in 2001 focused on expanding the school’s existing RTI team membership to include 

all K–3 teachers and specialists from 

Title I, special education, and English 

language learner programs. Special 

education and RTI project staff and 

school representatives met to formalize policies and procedures, including 

selecting both core and supplemental 

instructional programs (called “interventions”) and screening tests, team 

methods, and rules for placing students 

into three instructional levels, or tiers. 

Sadler and Pamela Zinn, a district literacy coordinator, special education 

teacher, and counselor, worked closely 

to provide technical assistance to the 

school teams. 

This early RTI effort was very much 

a work in progress, says Sadler, and 

the schools were equal partners in the 

learning. By then the district had developed significant capacity for making 

change. The district had implemented 

a comprehensive data collection system 

(including positive behavior support 

and DIBELS, as noted) and had adopted 

the strongest research-based core reading programs available at the time. The 

district had also established half-time 

curriculum and instruction specialists 

at each school. With this program, Zinn 

helped these specialists revise their job 

descriptions to focus exclusively on 

reading and to review and train in new, 

more promising interventions. During 

the first year of OrRTI, Zinn served 

as the project’s coordinator and colead 

trainer, with Joyce Woods, then associate 

director of special education.

How It Works 

“If we really want no child to be left 

behind, we must look at every child’s 

progress frequently,” says Hagen-Gilden. In TTSD, as in other RTI districts, 

this means every student’s progress. 

With some exceptions, the district’s 

procedures remained largely unchanged 

as OrRTI was developed. Three times a 

year, every student in the district’s 10 elementary schools is tested with DIBELS. 

Currently the district dispatches a team 

to administer the test, but in the past, 

each school had to come up with its own 

team. The district’s five secondary schools 

screen using a test called Maze-CBM, 

developed by AIMSweb, and soon some 

will begin screening in mathematics. 

Each school’s results, including behavioral and other data, are reviewed by 

its RTI team, including the principal, 

representative classroom teachers, the 

school counselor, and specialists in 

literacy, Title I, special education, and 

the English language learner program. 

One purpose of the teams’ review is 

to assess the effectiveness of the core 

instructional program, including the 

daily 90-minute reading block as well 

as behavior, mathematics, and writing 

programs. If at least 80 percent of the 

students do not meet grade-level benchmarks, the team assumes the problem 

is with curriculum or instruction, not 

students, and the team develops a plan 

to enhance the core program. 

The data review also determines 

which students need additional targeted instructional interventions. These 

are provided by trained instructors 

during the school day to small groups 

of elementary school students with 

similar learning needs. The lowest performing 20 percent of students receive 

these interventions, typically for 20 to 

30 minutes a day. These students’ progress is monitored using DIBELS or 

other reliable curriculum-based measures. The gap between each struggling 

student’s performance and the gradelevel benchmark is plotted on a graph, 

and an “aim line” is drawn connecting 

the two. Progress monitoring data are 

analyzed monthly by the RTI team to 

determine if the student is on target for 

meeting the benchmark by a specified 

time, such as the end of the quarter. If 

not, the team must decide if a change in 

intervention is needed. 

OrRTI uses clearly defined, districtestablished criteria and guidelines to 

guide these instructional decisions. For 

example: “Students who are in the lowest 20 percent of the class according to 

DIBELS and state assessment data will 

be selected for interventions.” Additional guidelines help determine which 

interventions should be used and for 

how long. For example: “Change the 

intervention when the student does 

not meet the aim line for four consecutive data points.” The district also uses 

guidelines for behavior.

Key to the program’s evolution has 

been the development of guidelines 

for checking the accuracy with which 
Northwest Education / fall 2008 17

instructional interventions and decision-making processes are implemented at the schools, critical if RTI is to 

be a valid and reliable “test” of special 

education eligibility and need. Results 

have included marked decreases in the 

percentage of discipline referrals since 

1999, with a steady downward trend 

since 2002–2003. From 2001–2002 to 

2005–2006, the rate of third-graders 

meeting and exceeding Oregon state 

benchmarks increased from 88 to 95 

percent. After the state test was revised to be more rigorous in 2006 the 

rate decreased, but by 2007–2008 even 

more dramatic increases resulted. 

The percent of 10th-graders has also 

shown improvement in meeting state 

benchmarks. 

State Involvement

Nancy Latini, state assistant superintendent for student learning and partnerships, is committed to helping schools 

implement best practices. As special 

education director, she has actively supported the Oregon Positive Behavior 

Support Network, a grassroots organization for trainers, coaches, and teams 

throughout the state. She was familiar 

with TTSD’s federal grant, and when 

the reauthorized IDEA included the 

RTI option, she started thinking about 

how to help other Oregon districts 

make the shift.

“The state department didn’t have 

the capacity to do this work, but I began 

to realize Tigard-Tualatin could. I asked 

Petrea [Hagen-Gilden] if the district 

would consider a contract to train and 

support other districts.” Upon mutual 

agreement in 2005, Latini’s office developed a collaborative agreement with 

the district to provide RTI training. This 

became OrRTI. At the same time, Latini created a similar agreement with the 

Linn Benton Lincoln Education Service 

District to support districts in implementing positive behavior support. 

“I didn’t create all of this on my 

own,” says Latini. “As special education 

director, I met regularly with a diverse 

group of special education stakeholders, 

including parents and representatives 

from advocacy groups and teachers’ 

unions. They were the first group to 

hear about the proposed plans. I got a 

lot of input and support from them.” 

Like the federal government, the 

state does not require use of RTI but 

supports districts in implementing 

this option. Participation in OrRTI 

is based on a competitive application 

process. High-level district leaders are 

involved in the training, including the 

superintendent, representative school 

principals, and the directors of special 

education, Title I, curriculum and instruction, and the English language 

learner programs. The five districts 

in the first RTI cadre started in 2006: 

Sheridan, Corvallis, Roseburg, Pendleton, and Ontario. Each year thereafter, 

another cadre of up to nine schools has 

participated, for a total of 29 districts, 

as well as nine more trained in RTI 

through another state initiative. The 

state provides small planning grants 

to participating districts. Additionally, 

districts receive tools, training, and ongoing support from TTSD. At least 99 

elementary schools are implementing 

RTI at varying levels.

“We want to support any district interested in RTI,” says Kimberly Ingram, 

Oregon Department of Education professional development coordinator, “but 

it’s not a mandate. With OrRTI, districts 

get planning money and expert technical 

assistance. We offer other opportunities 

around the state to learn about RTI. Our 

goal is to build a state infrastructure that 

supports districts in developing sustainable RTI models.” 

Perspectives From Schools

Durham Elementary

Joyce Woods, principal of Durham Elementary in TTSD, has been a general 

and special education teacher. She also 

served as lead trainer during the OrRTI 

program’s first year, along with Pamela 

Zinn. Woods remembers that when the 

district received the federal grant to implement its version of RTI, it decided 

not to make the program voluntary in 

the schools. 

Tigard-Tualatin Sets the Standard for Oregon rti program

What Is DIBELS?

In elementary schools, you might hear teachers talking about students 

getting “dibeled.” Staff are referring to the Dynamic Indicators of Basic 

Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS, a set of measures given to K–6 students 

to assess their progress in learning the skills needed to become successful readers. Developed in the late 1980s by Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, 

and other researchers at the University of Oregon, DIBELS is based on 

curriculum-based measurement (CBM) procedures used by Stanley Deno 

and colleagues through the Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities 

at the University of Minnesota. All the measures are timed, most taking 

only a minute, and are designed to be administered to individual students 

by trained teachers. 

DIBELS results help staff determine whether students have acquired 

basic reading skills at an automatic level, which allows young readers to 

focus on comprehension. The full set of DIBELS measures encompasses 

the five essential components of early literacy skill: phonological awareness, alphabetic principle and phonics, accuracy and fluency with connected text, comprehension, and vocabulary. The measures—such as 

oral reading fluency and word use fluency—serve as indicators, meaning 

they predict later reading proficiency but do not cover all the skills used 

in reading. Unlike other formative assessments, which measure whether 

students have learned the content taught, indicators such as DIBELS tell 

us whether students are making progress toward established long-term 

goals. 

Each measure is accompanied by a benchmark goal used by educators to gauge student progress. The research-based, criterion-referenced 

benchmark goals represent minimum levels of performance students must 

achieve to be considered on track to becoming a successful reader. 
18 nwrel.org/nwedu/

“The district studied the research and 

decided this was the right way to approach special and general education,” 

says Woods. All teachers received training on tiered instructional interventions 

and RTI. The district emphasized how 

RTI changed student identification for 

special education, but in retrospect, 

Woods thinks that focus may have made 

people think the program was only for 

special education students.

“This program means all students 

get a much more equivalent educational experience. No matter which 

second-grade class a student is in, he or 

she now gets the same well-delivered 

instruction,” says Woods. “Most of all, 

as a teacher, if my student doesn’t succeed in my regular class, I no longer assume something’s wrong with the student. My team at the school asks what 

else we need to do beyond core instruction to help this student.”

Woods remembers advising schools 

to start small and implement only what 

they could do well. To succeed, she says 

a school needs at least one team member 

who is adept with handling data. “If one 

of our teachers came to a team meeting without organizing and displaying 

the large amount of data we needed to 

review, it would be a disaster.” Additionally, to implement RTI, school staff 

should be flexible: Reading will become 

a true priority, which means that for 

students in interventions, some instructional time in another subject will be 

forfeited. At Durham, students in interventions might miss some social studies, science, or health. Teachers must be 

flexible about their own instruction, too: 

A school must implement a researchbased core reading program, which in 

some cases means giving up previous 

instructional approaches. 

Woods says RTI helped to explain 

what she had already experienced as 

a special education teacher. “I used to 

work on phonics with some of my students, and they would make this miraculous recovery. RTI taught me that 

I’m not a miracle worker—the kids just 

needed some additional instruction.”

Tigard High School 

“Last year is when we really got the teams 

working the way we wanted,” says Leslie Van Kleek, a special education teacher 

at Tigard High School. This is the third 

year that the school has used RTI. “In 

the past we had student support team 

meetings, where we talked about students who exhibited behavioral issues. 

Quite a few special education referrals 

came out of that. But now, through our 

team meetings, we find these students 

before they find us.”

In TTSD’s middle and high schools 

the RTI program is less intensive. At Tigard High School, all ninth- and 10thgraders are screened in reading. The 

most challenged students are assigned 

to intensive English classes that focus 

on developing reading skills. Progress 

monitoring data are collected monthly 

and reviewed by the school’s RTI team. 

Students at risk of dropping out participate in a behavior program called 

Reconnecting Youth, and students who 

are struggling in mathematics participate in a special algebra-prep class. Each 

week the school team reviews the progress of a different group of students, as 

well as schoolwide progress. Additionally, classroom teachers can request 

that the progress of any student who is 

struggling or simply showing signs of 

distress be reviewed by the team.

“This is how we ensure all students, 

not just those in our special programs, 

are served,” says Van Kleek. 

Implementing RTI in a high school 

can be especially challenging. One obstacle is how to provide extra instruction in core subject areas such as reading 

and math within high school schedules. 

At Tigard High School, which operates 

on a block schedule, students attending 

the special English/reading and math 

classes attend daily, whereas students in 

standard English and math sections go 

to class every other day. Yet, these students still get core subject credit, which 

doesn’t put them behind in earning 

graduation credit. 

Another District’s Experience

Three years ago North Clackamas 

Schools joined the second cadre of 

OrRTI schools and received training 

from TTSD. 

“We were dissatisfied with the “wait 

to fail” discrepancy model,” says Dean 

Richards, then a literacy specialist. 

“We’d tell parents, ‘Your child is struggling and may have a learning disability,’ 

but then we often didn’t do anything 

until third grade, when the discrepancy 

could be established.”

What Richards appreciates about 

RTI is that it facilitates instructional intervention as soon as a student shows 

signs of struggle. “Any student,” he emphasizes. “RTI assists schools with the 

goal we’re all pursuing: to meet our 

kids where they are and move them 

forward.” It also requires a change in 

mind-set. In the past, when he was an 

elementary general education teacher, 

Richards admits he didn’t worry as 

much as he might have about his special education students. “They left my 

classroom and went off to do something 

I didn’t have to know about. Now, I am 

critically involved with all of them.” 

Getting RTI going in his school was 

a lot like building an airplane while it 

was in the air, Richards remembers. 

The video Oregon Response to Intervention: A Multi-Tiered Instructional 

Approach guides the viewer through the steps necessary to implement 

a response to intervention program using practices developed in the 

Tigard-Tualatin School District. You will observe how the screening 

process identifies students who are performing successfully in the core 

curriculum and those who are in need of additional targeted instructional 

support. You will see how the curriculum is tailored to a student’s demonstrated literacy skills, and how the team process shapes and guides the 

entire school’s approach to instruction. 

For a limited number of copies of the video, please e-mail Margie 

Korshoj at mkorshoj@ttsd.k12.or.us.
Northwest Education / fall 2008 19

But similar to Tigard-Tualatin, the district built the plane one component at 

a time. In their first year the Treasures 

reading curriculum was adopted for 

K–6 classrooms and universal screening was implemented. In the second year, the district leadership team 

trained all elementary school teachers 

in RTI. The district also established 

its multitiered intervention framework 

and data-based team protocols at all the 

elementary schools. TTSD trainers observed instruction and team meetings 

at the schools and provided valuable 

feedback. Additionally, as with other 

participating districts, OrRTI staff reviewed North Clackamas’s protocols 

and decision-making guidelines before 

approving them.

“The plane isn’t built yet. Our 

schools are still learning,” says Richards, who recently joined the OrRTI 

team as a trainer.

Lessons Learned 

Trainers and other staff involved in 

OrRTI have learned to go slowly while 

laying the groundwork for the largescale changes involved in RTI. Especially in the first year, Lolich and her 

trainers spend more time talking about 

general education than special education, which comes as a surprise for 

some participants. 

RTI’s emphasis on accurate implementation of interventions also means 

a district cannot rush putting the whole 

framework into place. When Woods 

worked with schools that weren’t able 

to implement instructional interventions at all grade levels, she told them 

to start with the grade levels they could 

handle, even if that meant just one 

grade level. To reinforce high levels 

of implementation of instructional interventions, OrRTI trains both school 

principals and literacy specialists to 

regularly observe in classrooms. 

Sadler, who made regular visits to 

the schools she coached in RTI, says 

districts that succeed with these models need to have strong leadership and 

school-level teamwork, high-quality 

data processes, and efficient methods 

for organizing work. In her current 

consulting work she focuses on the 

district leadership team’s role. “District 

leaders have an important responsibility in figuring out how to support all 

this work at their schools,” she says. 

Lolich says it has been especially 

helpful to visit participating districts. 

“Staff share a lot with us. They see us 

as a peer more than as a state program 

manager.” TTSD superintendent Robert Saxton, a strong supporter of RTI, 

talks to other districts about the costs. 

He doesn’t believe districts need a lot 

more money to implement RTI. “They 

do have to get through the shift, though, 

to appreciate how the resources work 

to do all this.” 

Most everyone sees TTSD’s role as 

the lead trainer as especially helpful for 

the participating districts. As Richards 

says, “We can go to the districts and say, 

‘We’ve done it. Learn from both our 

mistakes and our successes.’” 

Indeed, guidance documents and 

the new video describing TTSD’s program will be posted on the new Web site 

OrRTI plans to develop, which will allow participating districts to share their 

experiences with one another. 

Ingram says the next step for the 

OrRTI program is a formal evaluation, 

to be conducted next year. It will look 

at student learning outcomes and implementation data and will incorporate 

lessons TTSD has learned about supporting districts implementing RTI. 

“I see RTI as a highly efficient and 

effective method for getting the right 

services to the right students,” says 

Latini. “I have a lot of hope for what 

it can do for English language learners, 

and for how it supports the goals of our 

classroom teachers.” n

(Above) Erin Lolich, TTSD’s associate director of student services for RTI; 

(below) Joyce Woods, Durham Elementary School principal

Tigard-Tualatin Sets the Standard for Oregon rti program
Sherry McConn teaches Junior/Senior Basic English 

and Guided Study—Tier II courses that build skills 

and self-confidence in struggling students.
Northwest Education / fall 2008 21

The “Wa-High Way”

WALLA WALLA, Washington—Sherry McConn strides from one 

end of her classroom to the other like a Broadway actress 

claiming the stage. In turn she tiptoes and prances, whispers 

and raises her voice, and fluidly extends an arm to draw in 

her “audience” of upperclassmen. A supporting cast of two 

paraeducators prowl the perimeters, leaning over individual 

students to answer questions or to keep squirming teenagers 

focused.

With students arranged in four pods around a central space, 

there’s no place to hide—not that McConn would let anyone 

slip by her notice. The stakes are simply too high. These students were handpicked for Junior/Senior Basic English because they need intensive skill development in reading. This 

class will help them to prepare for retaking Washington’s 

state achievement reading test or to develop the alternative 

Collection of Evidence portfolio needed for graduation.

“Interact with the text,” McConn directs her class. She 

reads aloud from the real-life account of a teenage boy who 

became a star athlete despite severe birth defects that left him 

without arms or legs. What questions would students have 

if they were the boy’s parents? Why do they think the family placed so much importance on having a sense of humor? 

What do they think is going to happen as the story progresses? 

Answers ping-pong around the room and a lively discussion 

erupts over how someone with stumps can bench press up 

to 420 pounds. The debate continues as the bell rings and 

students reluctantly shuffle off to their next class.

Defining Core Elements

McConn’s Basic English course is one of several “Tier II” 

classes that target struggling learners at Walla Walla High. 

The shift to a three-tiered model started about six years ago 

in this 6,000-student district in rural Eastern Washington. 

Laura Droke, the special programs director, recalls that her 

office studied the data and concluded they weren’t getting the 

results they wanted even though they had a strong remedial 

program in general and special education. “Our philosophy 

was to work with the kids until fourth or fifth grade and then 

teach them to compensate for their disabilities. We were seeing a lot of kids referred to special ed at the middle and high 

schools,” according to Droke.

Another big push for change came from the movement toward standards-based teaching. “When you teach to the standards, you look at whether students are meeting those standards—and if not, what do we do? I think the three-tiered 

model is about that,” says Mira Gobel, associate principal for 

curriculum, instruction, and assessment at Walla Walla High, 

the district’s only comprehensive high school. “Before, I don’t 

know if high school teachers looked that closely at whether 

kids were meeting standards. They looked at the failure rate 

and whether the student had passed the class or not.”

Building on the work of consultants Jack Fletcher of the 

University of Texas and David Chard of the University of 

Oregon, the district developed differentiated instructional 

programs or pathways that focused on early intervention. The 

Tiered pathways help a high school reach every student at his or her level.

Story by Rhonda Barton • Photos by Mark Higgins
22 nwrel.org/nwedu/

goal was to meet 80 percent of students’ needs in Tier I classes, serve an additional 10–15 percent of students in Tier II, and 

reduce the number of students receiving Tier III or special 

education services. At the heart of the model was a framework 

of seven core elements:

1. A set of strategic, research-validated measurable goals to 

guide instruction and learning

2. A valid and reliable formative assessment system to monitor 

progress

3. Adoption and implementation of research-validated 

programs that support the full range of learners

4. Adequate, prioritized, and protected time for core instruction 

and practice

5. Differentiated instruction, grouping, and scheduling that 

optimizes learning

6. Strong and informed instructional leaders [who] maintain 

focus and establish mechanisms to support reading progress

7. An integrated system of research-based professional 

development and resource allocation 

The district set to work fleshing out those elements through 

a four-year pilot project funded by the Washington Office of 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. Teachers and administrators pored over a variety of data sources—DIBELS, DRA, 

San Diego Quick—to screen students and identify those 

needing academic assistance; determine what services would 

be most appropriate; conduct ongoing progress monitoring 

while the instructional plan was implemented; and finally, 

make outcomes decisions based on whether the student was 

reaching learning benchmarks. 

In 2007, at the end of the project, Walla Walla was able to 

report significant progress: The number of students referred 

to special education dropped by 13.6 percent; the number of 

special education students served in all schools declined by 

10.4 percent; and the number of students enrolled in Tier I 

classes rose by 19.5 percent during the five-year period. At 

the same time, the district saw steady gains in the percentage 

of students passing the reading and writing portions of the 

Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) test at 

both the elementary and secondary school levels. The district 

concluded, “Tiered early and intensive literacy interventions 

have resulted in 79.5 percent of all fourth-graders, 63.8 percent of all seventh-graders, and 78.9 percent of all 10th-graders 

passing the WASL.” 

Homing in on Freshmen

Today, the seven core elements continue to steer the district’s 

efforts and serve as a guidepost for expanding the tiered program at the high school. Because freshman year is viewed as a 

critical juncture, special care goes into ensuring that incoming 

students are placed appropriately within the three tiers. About 

45 percent of the freshman class ends up receiving some type 

of intervention.

The process starts in the spring, when the high school 

hosts eighth-graders and their parents. “We talk about not 

just the registration process, but about graduation requirements and college planning. We always want them to consider 

both,” says Associate Principal Gobel. “The message we try to 

send is don’t decide now that college is not for you because 

you never know. You can choose not to go, [but] if you don’t 

take certain courses, it’s not a choice anymore.”

While Gobel talks up the importance of course selections 

with eighth-graders, she gives their teachers a rubric on how 

to advise students on placement. Gobel doesn’t mince words 

in the directions, telling teachers “this is not about your gut 

feelings.” She continues, “We want them to look at the MAP 

scores, the WASL, past performance, attendance—all those 

things go into consideration when you’re recommending a kid 

for basic, core, or honors classes. There’s nowhere that lists 

behavior, which is a huge paradigm shift since it used to be that 

the basic kids were the behavior problems. If there is a behavior 

problem we need to think about other accommodations, but 

it’s not a determining factor in going into a leveled class.”

Gobel and her staff help the eighth-graders sign up online 

for classes, reviewing the choices. Once registration is complete, Gobel examines the roster for Basic English to make 

sure every child who’s listed belongs there. “I have a database 

of every incoming eighth-grader and all their test scores, so 

I can see if any kids have been missed,” she notes. “It’s not 

foolproof but it’s as close as we can get, double- and triplechecking to make sure there’s appropriate placement.”

Involving Parents at Walla Walla High

Associate Principal Mira Gobel confesses that Walla Walla High 

School needs to beef up its parent involvement program. But, 

the school has hit on a novel way to reach out to parents prior 

to parent/teacher conference dates.

All teachers submit a “top 10” list of the students they’re 

most concerned about. “Some may not even be kids who are 

failing,” says Gobel. “It could be a kid who’s getting a C, but 

used to be an A student.” Gobel then sends a letter to the 

parents informing them that their student has been identified 

by one or more teachers as a student of concern. She strongly 

suggests they come to the conference. That tactic has boosted 

attendance along with a second, more direct approach.

Rather than hold two arena-style conferences as in the past, 

last year Gobel asked teachers to spend the first night calling 

parents from their classrooms. Again, each teacher targeted a 

top 10 list, telling parents “I’m concerned about your child and 

would like you to come to the conference tomorrow.” Teachers 

kept a log of their calls, and most managed to make more than 

10 contacts during the 4:30–8:00 p.m. period set aside for calling. Translators were available in the office to assist with phone 

calls to Spanish-speaking parents. “What was neat,” says Gobel, 

“is that some parents got calls from three different teachers the 

same night. By the time the third call came during dinner, they 

were asking their kids, ‘what’s going on that three teachers are 

calling me?’” As a result of the phone campaign, attendance at 

parent conferences dramatically increased and—given the fact 

that 100 teachers made at least 10 calls each—parents got a 

clear message that the school cared about their child.
Freshmen enrolled in Basic English find themselves in 

Casey Monahan’s capable hands. Monahan, who chairs 

the English Department, teaches two sections of Advanced 

Placement Language and Composition in addition to two 

basic courses. She sought the challenge and “new frontier” 

of teaching Tier II this year and prepared herself by attending GLAD training during the summer. GLAD, which stands 

for Guided Language Acquisition Design, is an instructional 

model designed for English language learner (ELL) students. 

Up to half of the students in Monahan’s basic classes are ELL

students, but she says that GLAD techniques are good teaching strategies that can work for everyone. That includes the 

students with individualized education plans (IEPs), who are 

transitioning out of Tier III instruction. 

In her morning basic class, Monahan blends writing practice 

with frequent praise for positive behavior. She asks students to 

point out classmates who are listening respectfully. Two paraeducators acknowledge pupils who are making good choices by 

staying on task. After class, Monahan shares that a priority will 

be building relationships with these students. “Relationships 

are important for everyone, but even more so at this level,” she 

says. “The AP kids are in my classes because they absolutely 

want to learn. Some of these kids may decide they want to learn 

for me or for one of the paraprofessionals.”

To further that connection, Monahan asks students to keep 

an interactive journal. Unlike the black and white composition notebooks where students record their daily writing assignments, the journals hold weekly musings on a topic of the 

student’s choice. Monahan comments on the entries, answers 

questions, and shares her feelings. Although the semester has 

barely started, one student already was moved to write about 

her boyfriend and pose the question, “What is love?”

Moving Between Levels

In addition to Basic English, ninth-graders who need extra 

support are offered a double dose of algebra. Peder Fretheim 

preteaches algebraic concepts and vocabulary to freshmen in 

the morning and then meets with the class again in the afternoon for a regular period of Algebra I. Today Fretheim lays the 

groundwork for solving complex equations by doing what he 

calls a “build-up activity” with individual whiteboards. “The 

biggest thing these kids have a problem with is following 

multiple steps and putting things together,” he comments. 

To address that, he has the whole class solve the first part of 

Casey Monahan hopes that the freshmen in her Basic English class will return to her classroom as juniors in AP Language and Composition.

the “wa-high way”
24 nwrel.org/nwedu/

the equation and then tackle combining like terms. Then 

he splits up the class and asks alternate rows to work on the 

different steps. 

“This is the second year I’ve taught this class, and I was 

dubious at first about the intervention curriculum,” Fretheim 

admits. He was converted, though, when 90 percent of last 

year’s Tier II class was able to progress to Tier I geometry this 

year. “The two things that are working,” he says, “are more 

time and a different approach.”

The goal of exiting students from Tier II to Tier I is always 

a top priority, as is pushing kids from mainstream to more 

rigorous AP courses. “We’ve even made those movements at 

semester time because [Tier II] is not a holding place,” Gobel 

says. “Once students have grown and met the benchmark, we 

do want them to move out.”

Throughout the year, Gobel and her team evaluate student 

performance through a variety of assessments. “The teachers 

meet in horizontal teams to identify what the kids need to 

know and be able to do by the first quarter. What are the big 

ideas? Then, we assess that,” she explains. “For example, right 

about now the ninth-grade English teachers are doing a common writing assessment, which they’ll score together. Last 

year they looked at weaknesses and strengths [of all freshmen] 

and found that conventions or grammar was a weakness. So, 

they studied the research and best practices on how to teach 

conventions. They taught it, and then did another assessment 

in winter. We want assessment to be for learning—not just for 

the students, but to inform teachers’ practice.” 

Director of Assessment Ron Higgins confirms that 

everyone at Walla Walla is looking at data in increasingly sophisticated ways. “It used to be that I was surrounded by data 

and I enjoyed playing around with it, so to speak, but I didn’t 

have anyone who desired to share in that,” he says. “Now, the 

challenge is the variety of requests that come in: Somebody 

wants to look at the math history of this sixth-grader from 

kindergarten on. Or, maybe they want to know not just how 

he’s doing in reading but what the comprehension level is 

throughout the years and if there’s a correlation between the 

DIBELS scores and what we’re finding out in math, and how 

that data can be used to predict how he’ll do on the WASL.” 

Meeting a Range of Needs

While the WASL looms large, interventions also focus on 

helping students stay in school and experience postsecondary 

success. For instance, the AVID or Advancement Via Individual Determination elective prepares selected students for 

entrance into four-year colleges. The class is geared toward 

Tier I students who may be the first in their family to aim 

for college. It combines tutor-led inquiry study groups with 

motivational activities and academic survival skills such as 

note-taking and time management. This year, 58 freshmen—

or roughly 10 to 12 percent of ninth-graders—were chosen 

for the program based on applications, interviews, academic 

records, and teacher recommendations.

A Guided Study (Tier II) class provides time during the day 

for students to receive help in understanding and completing 

homework assignments. Two paraprofessionals and Sherry 

McConn, the Junior/Senior Basic English instructor, offer 

support wherever it’s needed—from a tricky math problem 

to a difficult passage in a social studies text. Students are expected to use a planner to organize and prioritize their work, 

reserving class time for the most pressing assignments.

McConn, who constantly checks in with her students’ other 

teachers about course content and grades, believes the class fills 

an important need. “We’ve certainly seen kids who had not experienced success in middle school passing their classes—maybe for the first time,” she says. “Their confidence level grows 

and they believe in themselves again.” For 14-year-old Nancy, 

Guided Study “helps me get my assignments done.” The freshman says it’s eased her adjustment to a big high school “with 

longer classes and a lot more walking.” 

Some ninth-graders get a double dose of algebra, attending both 

morning and afternoon sessions with Peder Fretheim.

By the numbers: Walla Walla School District

Enrollment (all programs) 5,995 students

Walla Walla High School 1,723 students

Ethnic population

 Caucasian 64%

 Hispanic 31%

 African American 2%

 Asian 2% 

Free and reduced-price lunch 48%

Average expenditure per pupil $9,570

Source: District Fact Sheet, 2008
Northwest Education / fall 2008 25

For students at greater risk of failure, Walla Walla High 

mobilizes the Student Support Team. Currently, 60 students 

are served by the team, which is made up of an administrator, 

the director of campus security, the school’s drug and alcohol counselor, a teacher, the school psychologist, and a guidance counselor. Each member of the team serves as a case 

manager and mentor for 8–10 students, meeting with them 

individually at least once a week. “If a kid is experiencing consistent behavioral problems, they’re referred to the team. We 

go from there and try to find out the root of the problem,” 

explains Matt Bona, the assistant principal for grades 9–10. If 

the problem requires additional resources, the team pulls in 

community partners in mental health and juvenile justice.

Like Monahan, McConn and Bona stress the critical role 

of personal connections in helping students navigate the 

rocky shoals of high school. “If you don’t have significant 

relationships, you won’t have significant learning going on,” 

Bona asserts. “A lot of these classes and programs are able to 

establish relationships with kids when they first step on this 

campus. It gets them hooked into the Wa-High way of doing 

things. That’s the key to keeping kids here and being successful 

while they’re here.”

Parents such as Lupe Cerda and Jean Colombo can testify to 

the difference that caring staff and strategic interventions made 

for their children. Cerda’s daughter was in Basic English last 

year but enrolled in a senior college prep class this term—an 

accomplishment she credits to “Mrs. McConn taking the extra 

steps to work with her.” Seventeen-year-old Olivia has applied 

to community college with a goal of being a teacher, inspired 

by McConn’s example. Colombo’s son, Brian, is already a 

sophomore in college. Diagnosed with dyslexia, he didn’t learn 

to read until he was in middle school, where Special Education 

Coordinator Cindy Nass worked with him an hour a day on 

the Lindamood-Bell learning process. Benefiting from special 

services through an IEP, Brian finished eighth in his graduating 

class with a 3.97 grade point average. 

Developing the RTI Framework

Although a tiered model is the bedrock of Walla Walla’s instructional program, teachers and administrators throughout 

the district would be hard-pressed to call it “response to intervention.” That’s one of the challenges that Maria Garcia, 

the district’s new RTI coordinator, faces. Funded by a threeyear state grant, Garcia has been handed the task of coordinating the intervention efforts currently underway. “My position 

will allow us to better understand all the programs across the 

district and help everyone understand the three-tiered model 

and use common language,” she says. “I’m making every effort possible to let people know I’m not coming in and saying we’re going to do something totally different. Instead, I’m 

trying to help buildings see where what they’re already doing 

fits into the RTI framework.”

The former school psychologist says Walla Walla was chosen for an RTI personnel development grant because it already has the infrastructure in place for curricular pathways, 

teacher teaming, and data analysis. The district is poised to 

take the next jump, building a three-tiered pyramid with an 

ever-widening base.

What does it take to keep moving forward? A group of administrators who’ve been in the trenches offer this advice: 

Work together as a team to teach all kids; make sure one person has her eye on the ball all the time, looking after the Tier II 

staff; have a vision of where you want to be in five years and 

then work backward; and know that you’re not dealing with 

percentages or averages, but rather with individual students 

who all have names. “It’s not easy work,” concedes Deputy 

Superintendent Linda Boggs. “It’s messy and it can hurt. But, 

you have to stay the course.” n

As part of its three-tier program, Walla Walla High expanded its Advanced 

Placement offerings—including Julie Laufenburg’s AP Art class.

the “wa-high way”
26 nwrel.org/nwedu/

BUCKLEY, Washington—The small town 

of Buckley lies between the White River and the north slope of Mount Rainier, which is less than 20 miles away. 

For nearly a century life in Buckley 

revolved around those two natural resources, but the past decade has brought 

unprecedented change. As the Seattle 

and Tacoma suburbs sprawl deeper into 

the Cascade Mountain foothills, some 

urban commuters have been willing to 

trade long drives for a small piece of the 

country. Only 25 miles from Tacoma, 

Buckley’s mountain views, glacier-fed 

river, and abundant wildlife have made 

it irresistible. It’s a community in transition, and the public schools have been 

one of the first to feel the impact. 

The White River School District, 

which serves Buckley and several 

smaller communities nearby, has been 

playing catch-up for most of the past 

decade. A new high school opened in 

2004, but the district is still working to 

update curriculum materials, provide 

more staff development, and raise student achievement. In the past three 

years they’ve made significant progress 

in all three areas, and response to intervention (RTI) has been a big part of 

the mix. 

For Foothills Elementary, one of 

the district’s five elementary schools, 

that improvement effort reached new 

heights in the 2007–2008 school year. 

In a single year Foothills implemented 

the district’s new K–5 math curriculum, provided intensive staff development in that curriculum, significantly 

altered its schedule, began a new professional learning community process, 

and created a more structured, general 

education approach to RTI. It could 

have been overwhelming. Instead, it 

resulted in a boost in student achievement, a state RTI grant, and new 

momentum for the current year. 

Finding the Resources

One of the best places to see the district’s 

progress in action is in Foothills’ three 

third-grade classrooms. “These are three 

people who just have it together,” Principal Mark Cushman says of the thirdgrade team. “They know what they’re 

doing. They make no excuses. They’re 

a very high-performing group.” 

Sarah Hintz, Denise Shaleen, and 

Amanda Smith differ in age and teaching experience, but each is highly qualified, dedicated, and resourceful. That 

last quality has sometimes been the 

most important. 

“Districts always have to make hard 

choices about where they’re going to 

focus,” says Director of Assessment 

and Curriculum Mike Jacobsen. “In 

tough budget times, when you’re looking at $300,000 for a major curriculum 

adoption, it’s difficult for a district our 

size to do.” 

For now, that continues to mean a 

K–5 reading curriculum that is more 

than a decade old. It would not meet 

current standards, Jacobsen says, and 

it does not align with the state’s gradelevel expectations (GLEs). 

Changing the

Focus

Story and photo by Bracken Reed

In a small Washington community undergoing rapid change, 

RTI is at the center of the district’s efforts to adapt. 
Northwest 

Education / fall 2008 27

Image © Stacey Lynn Brown/iStockphoto
28 nwrel.org/nwedu/

The Foothills’ third-grade team admits, unapologetically, that they barely 

use it. Instead, they have spent countless 

hours of their own time collecting curriculum materials, aligning them to the 

GLEs, and creating lesson plans. “We 

really do our own thing,” says Hintz. 

“We pull things together from books, 

the Internet, whatever it takes. We have 

a job to do, and if we aren’t given the 

right materials, we’ll find them.”

Other elementary teachers in the 

district have done the same thing, and 

for the most part the system is working. 

“Our reading data actually look pretty 

good at the elementary level,” says Jacobsen. “But the problem is that the 

implementation is variable from one 

classroom to the next. We know from 

research that the fidelity of implementation is critical, and that’s hard to get 

when you don’t have a strong core 

curriculum in place.”

Until recently, the situation was the 

same for K–5 mathematics—an outdated 

curriculum, lack of consistent implementation, and a lot of hard work for teachers. 

“We didn’t complain,” says Shaleen, “but 

there was definitely some frustration 

with the weak curriculum we’d been given. Just like reading, we were constantly 

searching for other materials and trying 

to match them to our GLEs.” 

The district was committed to improving the situation, but couldn’t afford a new K–5 curriculum for both 

math and reading. Based on achievement data on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and 

on results from an in-house universal 

math screening tool, the district decided 

that math was the most pressing need. 

In the spring of 2007 the school 

board made the commitment to pay 

for the new math curriculum and the 

staff development to go with it. Teachers unanimously chose the Bridges in 

Mathematics curriculum, a product of 

the nonprofit Math Learning Center. 

The district hired a private consultant, 

Janis Heigl, to conduct extensive staff 

development throughout the following 

school year. Hintz, Shaleen, and Smith 

looked forward to it. 

A Commitment to Intervention

When the three teachers came back to 

school that fall there were several surprises. “When we first saw ‘intervention’ 

on our schedules we thought: What’s 

that?” says Smith. “I was hesitant. I 

didn’t know how it was going to work.”

According to Jacobsen there had been 

interest, discussion, and a few limited 

efforts to implement portions of RTI at 

some buildings in the past several years, 

but a more comprehensive, general education approach had yet to gain ground. 

Jacobsen and others in the district were 

strong advocates of the RTI framework, 

but the funding was not there. In 2007, 

a minigrant from the Washington Office 

of Superintendent of Public Instruction 

(OSPI) and the Puget Sound Educational Service District helped put the 

effort in motion. 

Foothills Elementary signed on 

as one of two RTI pilot schools, and 

Cushman decided to link the effort to 

the new math curriculum by dedicating 

one hour a day to math 

intervention. 

For those familiar with 

walk-to-read programs 

and the idea of instructional grouping based 

on student performance 

levels, the school’s math 

intervention block is easy 

to grasp. Title I teacher 

Nancy Loy even refers to 

the strategy as “walk-tomath.” Each K–5 grade 

has its own intervention 

period and its own team. 

For example, the thirdgrade team is joined by 

Loy, another Title I staff 

person, and a special 

education paraeducator 

to form six separate instructional groups. Each 

group has an average of 

five students or fewer, 

and the students literally 

walk from their regular 

classroom to the appropriate instructor during 

the intervention period. 

As before, all students 

are assessed at the beginning of the 

school year. Now, however, those data 

are used to find the appropriate instructional group for each student and 

to identify necessary interventions, 

rather than simply to recommend some 

students for special education. 

After the initial grouping, frequent 

progress monitoring allows for flexible 

movement from one group to the next 

and for the adjustment of individual 

student interventions. This is another 

area in which the school has gone deeper into an RTI process it was already 

using. “We did some progress monitoring, or at least pretesting and posttesting, before this,” says Smith, “but we 

didn’t really do anything with the data. 

It was kind of like, ‘Oh, that’s nice to 

know,’ and then we moved on. Now 

we actually use it to help students get 

what they need.” 

As Loy is quick to point out, the new 

intervention period is not about core 

replacement. All students continue to 

Third-grade teacher Sarah Hintz helped raise math scores to 90 

percent proficient.
Northwest Education / fall 2008 29

receive the core curriculum in the regular classroom, and all students participate in the intervention period, which 

is perhaps the biggest difference from 

previous practice. Rather than conducting interventions for only a few 

students during “pull-out” sessions, 

the common intervention period gives 

all students extra time by using the 

three-tiered approach—benchmark, 

strategic, and intensive. Those students 

already at benchmark get 

“enhancement” (the opportunity to move on to more 

challenging material) during the intervention period. 

Meanwhile, the small groups 

allow for very specific, targeted interventions. Teachers 

are able to pinpoint the exact skill a student needs help 

with, get them up to speed, 

and move them on to another group. 

With the frequent progress monitoring, 

gaps in understanding are caught and 

addressed immediately. 

As Shaleen puts it, “RTI makes sure 

that all kids are learning what they need 

to learn and learning how they learn 

best. If they’ve got it, they can move 

on during the intervention period and 

stay motivated. If they only need a very 

strategic intervention on one skill they 

can get it. If they need a lot, we can accommodate that but in most cases still 

keep them in the core. Parents feel really good about it because they see that 

their kid’s needs are being met, no matter what those needs are.” 

The staff had some obvious questions 

when starting out. For instance, doesn’t 

the intervention period widen the gap 

between those getting intervention and 

those getting enhancement? Don’t the 

advanced students get bored and the 

struggling students get confused when 

they’re back in the regular classroom? 

“Part of that works itself out because 

not all students are deficient in the 

same skills,” says Loy. “We had that discussion during our training with Janis 

Heigl, and she really encouraged us to 

keep everyone in the core.”

In some classrooms a little adjustment was necessary. If students didn’t 

keep up, behavior problems sometimes 

followed, distracting other students. 

The solution was to have a paraeducator in the room during core time. “She 

could work with those few struggling 

students in the back of the room,” says 

Loy. “She doesn’t teach them a separate 

lesson, she just tutors them and focuses 

them when they need it.”

The third-grade team’s initial hesitation about RTI quickly dissolved. “We 

love it because it meets all kids right 

where they are,” says Hintz. “It’s flexible and it gives you the confidence that 

they’re getting it. You have the time to 

reteach the targeted skill if you need to, 

or for the kids that are getting everything you can move on.” 

Knocking Down Walls 

To implement RTI with fidelity, the 

district felt that one other critical feature needed to be in place. “We really 

see professional learning communities and RTI as joined,” says Jacobsen. 

“Frankly, I don’t think you can do one 

without the other.” 

The professional learning communities (PLCs) process typically involves 

grade-level or content area teams meeting to discuss and analyze a specific issue or agenda using four essential questions. White River’s PLC process is 

based on the work of Rick and Rebecca 

Dufour and uses the following questions: What is it we expect students to 

learn? How will we know when they 

have learned it? How will we respond 

when they do not learn? How will we 

respond when they already know it? 

“Where PLCs and RTI really come 

together is on that third question,” says 

Jacobsen. “What are we going to do for 

those students who need extra time and 

support? How do we identify them? 

How do we intervene? What rules do 

we have to determine when to change 

our instruction? How do we monitor 

progress? What the PLCs have done is 

create a specific way for teachers to collaborate together, using student data to 

address those questions.”

To accommodate PLCs, Foothills 

went to a late-start Monday schedule. 

Teams meet for one hour before school 

in what Cushman calls “very 

focused, even prescriptive 

sessions.”

According to Jacobsen that 

tight focus is absolutely necessary. “It’s focused on data 

so that we don’t waste time 

talking about things we can’t 

change,” he says. “What we’re 

after is a collective responsibility for student learning.”

For the third-grade team the PLC 

process has been nothing short of 

transformative. Rather than three separate classrooms with closed doors and 

little collaboration, the PLC has created a single, interrelated group focused 

on student learning. “We joke that 

we should just knock down the walls 

between our classrooms,” says Shaleen.

The result has been that barriers are 

falling for their students. Last year, 90 

percent of Foothills’ third-graders were 

proficient on the statewide assessment 

in math and 85 percent were proficient 

in reading—a significant increase from 

the previous year. Meanwhile, other 

grade levels also saw increases and 

avoided a statewide dip in math scores 

in the later elementary grades. 

According to Jacobsen, it’s only the 

beginning. Partly because of its combination of RTI and PLCs, the district 

was chosen as one of six to take part 

in a new statewide RTI project, which 

means more training, more resources, 

and, yes, more change. “We’ve got a 

long way to go,” Jacobsen says, “but 

we’re very excited about the direction 

we’re headed.” n

“We really see professional

learning communities and 

RTI as joined,” says Jacobsen. 

“Frankly, I don’t think you can do 

one without the other.”

changing the focus
30 nwrel.org/nwedu/
Northwest Education / fall 2008 31

Montana educators search for just the right 

balance between a federal grant–supported 

RTI program and local flexibility.

Story by Bracken Reed

Photos by Pam Voth

HELENA and STEVENSVILLE, Montana—As the coordinator of the Montana 

Office of Public Instruction’s (OPI) Response to Intervention (RTI) Project, Tara Ferriter-Smith walks a fine line. On a scorching August morning 

in Helena, her presentation at the state’s annual summer reading institute 

is one part overview of the topic, one part sales pitch, and one part reassurance that RTI isn’t just the latest federally supported fad to come down 

the pike. 

Most of the teachers in attendance are from rural communities—places 

like Ennis, Belt, and Roundup—where budgets are small, change comes 

slowly, and programs promoted by the government are often viewed with 

skepticism. 

As a native Montanan and former teacher, some of which was in a oneroom schoolhouse, Ferriter-Smith is well aware of that cautious attitude, 

and she takes subtle steps to address it. Her presentation begins with a 

personal story about her own school-age boys—one an advanced learner 

while the other has faced many struggles learning to read. As a copresenter, 

she has chosen Gwen Poole, an elementary teacher from Colstrip, a small 

Eastern Montana town that mirrors many of the participants’ own communities. Together, Ferriter-Smith and Poole put a Montana-friendly spin 

on RTI, while still making a strong case for its critical features and the 

necessity for rigorous implementation. 

“One of the great things about RTI is that it’s very much about local control,” Ferriter-Smith says only a few minutes into the presentation. 

“There are essential components that do not change, but a lot of the details 

will be decided at the local level. You can really make it your own.”
32 nwrel.org/nwedu/

When a veteran teacher from Belt expresses concern that 

RTI might be a “hard sell” to her fellow staff members who 

may view it as just another flash-in-the-pan program, Poole 

takes the issue head on. 

“No one’s claiming that RTI is a miracle cure or a quick 

fix,” she says. “You can’t go out and buy it. You can’t pick it up 

in a box. It’s not something that you’re going to do in a year 

or two years. This is going to take time.” 

Ferriter-Smith nods in agreement. “This is a huge paradigm shift,” she says, “and that kind of change can be painful. 

But if you implement it with fidelity, it’s something that can 

really transform your school.” 

Throughout the morning Ferriter-Smith and Poole find 

this delicate balance—peppering their presentation with 

phrases like “fundamental change,” “tearing down walls,” and 

“dismantling the old system,” but delivering them in the calm, 

encouraging tone of elementary teachers. As they outline the 

essential “nonnegotiable” components of RTI, they also emphasize the “many elements around those basic components 

that should be decided locally.” It’s a message that somehow 

combines strict program fidelity with local flexibility, and it 

seems to be working. 

For the past several years a steady stream of Montana 

schools has been turning to the RTI process. 

Essential Components 

The official Montana RTI Project, backed by a federal grant, 

began in 2005–2006 with four elementary pilot schools. In 

the current school year the project is scaling up to 40 more 

schools across the state, including several at the middle and 

high school level. Meanwhile, many more schools and districts are cutting their own path, finding the money for RTI 

training without being part of the state grant project. 

Stevensville Elementary is one of those trailblazers. A K–6 

school located in the beautiful Bitterroot Valley, they began 

implementing RTI at the K–3 level in 2006–2007. True to 

OPI’s “make it your own” philosophy, Stevensville has found 

success by seamlessly integrating the essential components 

of RTI with other efforts already under way, in particular a 

Reading First grant, and by tweaking the details to fit its own 

needs and resources. 

Stevensville received a three-year Reading First grant for 

the fall of 2005, one year prior to its RTI training. According 

to Principal Jackie Mavencamp, without that year of Reading 

First under its belt the RTI process would have been much 

harder to implement. “Reading First helped build a base, a 

foundation system where everyone was on the same page, using the same curriculum, and talking the same language,” she 

says. “Before that we didn’t have any of that in place.”

OPI’s Ferriter-Smith also points to the importance of a 

strong core program. “Whether it comes about as part of a 

Reading First grant or in some other way, and whether it happens prior to implementing RTI or in conjunction with it, 

that’s one of the pieces that really needs to be in place for RTI 

to work,” she says. “A strong core curriculum and the professional development to go with it are absolutely essential.”

At Stevensville, Reading First and RTI are now “so hand 

in glove that it’s kind of hard to tease out which has had what 

effect,” says Mavencamp. “The way I explain it to those who 

aren’t familiar with either one is: Reading First is a compilation of the best practices, from the available research, about 

how to teach kids reading and RTI is a compilation of the best 

practices, from the available research, about how to meet the 

needs of students who are not making sufficient progress in 

the core curriculum.”

A closer look at some of RTI’s essential components, as 

identified in Montana RTI Project training materials, and 

how they are reflected in Stevensville’s Reading First program, 

makes the connection explicit: 

•	 A strong research-based curriculum and instruction 

in place—Stevensville has implemented a research-based 

core reading program that includes direct and explicit 

instruction in the five essential reading components as 

identified by the National Reading Panel.

•	 An uninterrupted instructional block—Stevensville 

Third-grade teacher Valerie Pateman uses data-driven instruction to meet 

the needs of each student.
Northwest Education / fall 2008 33

has a 90-minute uninterrupted reading block for grades 

K–3 every morning, as well as an additional “targeted” 

30-minute block in the afternoon for both intervention 

and enhancement. 

•	 Instructional groups based on performance levels—

Stevensville uses a walk-to-read model to provide differentiated instruction to small groups of students. These 

groups are formed using frequent progress monitoring.

•	 Flexible reorganization of instructional groups 

based on data—Stevensville administers frequent reading assessments, typically once or twice a month, and these 

data can be used to reorganize instructional groups at any 

time.

•	 Progress monitoring measures in place and scheduled according to the intensity of the curriculum 

and instruction—Stevensville uses DIBELS to monitor 

progress—twice a month for all students who are currently receiving “intensive” interventions and once a month 

for those receiving “strategic” interventions. All students 

are tested for “benchmark” three times a year, in the fall, 

winter, and spring. 

Other common features of Reading First and RTI include 

embedded professional development, scheduled time for 

weekly team meetings, and a collaborative staff model that 

requires Title I staff, special education teachers, and regular 

classroom teachers to work together for all students.

Beyond these similarities, however, there are a few finer 

points. While Reading First is narrowly focused on reading 

at the K–3 level, RTI is a process that can be applied to any 

subject area at any grade level. That makes RTI essentially a 

schoolwide process for differentiating instruction for all students, rather than a narrowly defined process for identifying 

appropriate interventions. According to the available research, 

schoolwide implementation with fidelity can take as long as 

six years. 

“We feel like we’ve pretty fully implemented RTI in terms 

of reading and also using a three-tiered behavior model,” says 

Mavencamp. “We started scaling up the reading program and 

RTI training in grades 4–6 last year. This year we’re starting to 

work on our math curriculum and to develop a three-tiered 

system that’s very similar to our reading system.” 

Local Details 

Besides combining RTI with its existing Reading First program, Stevensville has made a few other local decisions so the 

process is more fully its own. One important area is the use of 

a problem-solving model as part of its RTI process. 

As defined by the National Association of School Psychologists, a problem-solving model is “a systematic approach 

that reviews student strengths and weaknesses, identifies 

evidence-based instructional interventions, frequently collects data to monitor student progress, and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions implemented with the student.” 

This model, like Reading First, is a natural fit with RTI and 

is sometimes identified as an essential component. Many 

schools, however, do not make the commitment to implementing a problem-solving method in conjunction with RTI. 

In Montana, it is highly encouraged, but is a local choice. Stevensville made the decision that a problem-solving model 

was indeed essential. 

The formation of an RTI team is another essential component, but also one in which the details are often left up to the 

school. These details can include which staff members are on 

the team, how often they meet, and what their official role is 

in determining individual student interventions. At Stevensville the RTI team consists of Mavencamp, K–3 special education teacher Kristen Bogan, the reading coach, the school 

psychologist, and—unlike many schools—one teacher representative from each K–3 grade level. This is currently being 

scaled up to include teacher representatives from grades 4–6.

 It has also had an enormous impact on the school. Before 

implementing RTI, decisions about interventions for a given 

student were either made by the classroom teacher or the special education teacher. Even the dialogue between those two 

was often perfunctory and not data-based. 

Now, says special education teacher Kristen Bogan, “We 

make all of those decisions, for each student, as a team. If 

a student isn’t responding to a certain intervention then I 

bring it to the RTI team and we look at the data and use the 

problem-solving model to make a decision. It’s never just 

one person deciding and it’s never pull it out of your hat day. 

It’s always, this is what the team has decided, based on these 

data. It takes a lot of pressure off me and off the classroom 

teacher.”

Great Results 

Together, Reading First and RTI have completely changed 

the way Stevensville Elementary does business and the results are undeniable. “We have definitely seen the number of 

students needing intensive interventions decrease,” says Mavencamp. In addition, the number of students identified as 

Principal Jackie Mavencamp has been an early supporter of using RTI 

in the mainstream classroom.

balancing act
34 nwrel.org/nwedu/

learning disabled and/or qualifying for special 

education has been reduced so much that Bogan is now the lone special education teacher 

for grades K–3. With nearly 300 students in that 

grade span, fewer than 30 are currently identified for special education. 

“We rarely identify students as learning disabled now,” says Mavencamp. “Nine times out 

of 10, when we put students through the problem-solving process we are able to figure out 

what that kid needs and we’re able to provide it 

so that they move from intensive to strategic or 

even into benchmark.” 

The impact has also been felt by the school’s 

speech therapist, whose case load has been cut 

“at least in half ” because of the focused, personalized interventions that all intensive-level 

kindergartners get on phonemic awareness and 

phonics.

Perhaps the most important change has been 

the way the school deals with the large number of students who previously fell through 

the cracks. “Before we implemented these programs we had a whole group of kids who weren’t identified 

as special education but who weren’t keeping up,” says Mavencamp. “We’d end up keeping them a half-year or threequarters of a year behind their grade level while we tried to 

catch them up. Now, they’re all using grade-level materials 

the entire year. The instructional strategies vary, the amount 

of practice they get on a particular skill varies, but they’re not 

being kept behind grade level.”

As Ferriter-Smith warned her audience in Helena, this 

kind of change can be painful. Both Reading First and RTI 

have required major shifts in daily practice and teaching 

philosophy for the entire Stevensville staff. The switch to a 

heavily data-based approach, for example, can be especially 

difficult for teachers who’ve spent the last two decades relying on experience and intuition. Third-grade teacher and RTI 

team member Valerie Pateman, in her sixth year of teaching, 

recalls how different things were when she first arrived. “I remember going to meetings with some of the veteran teachers 

and realizing that they really did have a good handle on who 

their students were, but it was more of a gut feeling. And then 

we started Reading First and RTI and we all started looking 

at the data and the data did not lie. I think some of the veteran teachers struggled, at first, with how data-driven things 

have become and how different the profession of teaching 

is now. But it was undeniable, and they’ve adapted. It might 

seem ironic, but you actually get to know a student a lot more 

in-depth now than in the past.” 

At Stevensville Elementary that willingness to adapt is making all the difference. The entire staff has worked together to 

find the right balance between old ways and new, federally 

backed programs and local flexibility, personal responsibility 

and teamwork. They’ve done it for the good of the students, 

but it’s had a side benefit as well. “It has been an absolutely 

exciting and phenomenal process to watch as an administrator,” says Mavencamp. “We already had excellent teachers, 

but they are truly outstanding professionals now. I just can’t 

praise them enough.” n

Raising Proficiency

Prior to implementing Reading First and RTI, Stevensville 

Elementary was not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

on the statewide criterion-referenced test. Reading scores 

for special education students were a particular concern, 

hovering below 40 percent proficiency. In 2006–2007 those 

scores rose to 48 percent, and the school made AYP for the 

first time in several years. In 2007–2008 special education 

reading scores rose to 61 percent and the school again 

made AYP. Reading scores for all students last year were at 

86 percent proficient, while math scores were 71 percent 

proficient.

Reading Coach Jodi Ockunzzi is a key member of the RTI team.
Northwest Education / fall 2008 35

research brief

There has been great national interest in 

response to intervention (RTI) as many 

districts and schools look for ways to improve outcomes and meet the accountability requirements of the No Child 

Left Behind Act. One source of the 

momentum behind RTI is the need for 

more accurate and effective methods of 

serving struggling students. 

Because it drew attention during 

the reauthorization of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 

2004), the process is often associated 

with special education. It is more accurate to characterize RTI as a change 

in how services and resources are organized for general education, yet some 

of the important benefits of using RTI 

are demonstrated in special education 

services.

Initially, the recommendations for 

using RTI came more from evidence 

that traditional practices are inadequate 

rather than evidence that RTI is effective (Griffiths, Parson, Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Tilly, 2007). Research 

reveals that teacher referrals can be 

unreliable at identifying students who 

have specific learning disabilities. The 

tests on which referrals are based do 

not provide information that can be 

used to identify strategies to address 

students’ learning needs. The tests are 

also unreliable because they fail to distinguish students with learning disabilities from low-achieving students. Inaccurate identification procedures are 

also linked to the overrepresentation of 

minorities in special education.

RTI practices have been demonstrated to be more accurate and efficient than teacher referral—a greater percentage of students who are 

referred to special education based on 

RTI data end up being eligible for services (Burns & Senesac, 2005; Case, 

Speece, & Molloy, 2003; McNamara & 

Hollinger, 2003; VanDerHeyden, Witt, 

& Naquin, 2003). RTI has been effective in reducing the number of referrals 

and placements in special education 

(Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005; 

Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005).

RTI is also a means of adjusting what 

some see as an overreliance on special 

education services. Many teachers have 

tended to see special education as the 

answer for their struggling students. 

They believe that once students are 

identified and can begin receiving services, their problems will be addressed. 

People who subscribe to this view are 

usually unaware of the lack of evidence 

supporting the effectiveness of special 

education (Bolt, 2005). Teachers need 

to realize that their own efforts may be 

more effective.

In order to use RTI effectively, schools 

must step away from the belief system 

that looks for answers for academic and 

behavioral problems by identifying a deficiency within the student. Instead, the 

staff of the school focuses on maximizing the ability of general education classrooms to meet the needs of individual 

students. Special education services are 

put off until the impact of instructional 

adaptations have been explored (Fuchs 

& Fuchs, 1998).

As the implementation becomes 

more widespread, evidence about the 

impact of RTI on both school-level and 

student-level outcomes is beginning to 

accumulate. The results of research and 

evaluation studies have been compiled 

in several different articles, and RTI 

has demonstrated the following results 

(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Griffiths et 

al., 2007):

• Improvements in student academic performance, including greater 

numbers of students demonstrating 

proficiency on state tests

• Decreased rates of grade retentions

• School-based teams serve more 

students without increasing special 

education referral rates

• Students who are identified as unresponsive through an RTI process go 

on to experience positive outcomes

Many schools are using RTI to address behavioral issues in addition to 

academic ones. This grows out of the 

recognition that social-emotional learning is related to academic outcomes—

poor performance may be the result of 

behavioral problems rather than learning disabilities or ineffective instruction. The focus is on using proactive 

strategies to prevent behavior problems 

throughout the school and then applying strategic interventions to address 

issues in the classroom and with individual students (Griffiths et al., 2007). 

This use of RTI has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing problem behaviors schoolwide and reducing disruptive behavior in the classroom (Oswald, 

Safran, & Johanson, 2005; Skinner, 

Williams, & Neddenriep, 2004).

English language learners (ELLs) are 

sometimes overrepresented in special 

education. It can be challenging to separate ELL challenges in language acquisition from other learning issues. Most of 

the research conducted to date has focused on using RTI with monolingual 

students, but there are a few studies that 

focus on interventions for ELL students. 

Reading interventions, including those 

that have demonstrated positive results 

for native English speakers, have led to 

positive outcomes for ELL students in 

gaining academic skills and closing performance gaps (Healy, Vanderwood, & 

Edelston, 2005; Vaughn, Mathes, LinanThompson, & Francis, 2005).

While the research base for RTI is 

growing, it is probably not possible for it 

to keep pace with the rapidly increasing 

RTI Practices Seen as More Accurate Than Referrals By Jennifer Stepanek
36 nwrel.org/nwedu/

research brief

interest in the field. There are a number of important questions about RTI 

where there is scant evidence available. 

In particular, little is known about the 

use of RTI in subject areas other than 

reading and how the RTI model works 

at the secondary level. More time is 

needed before we will have the full picture, but the evidence so far suggests 

that it will be worth the wait. n

References

Bolt, S.E. (2005). Reflections on practice within the Heartland problemsolving model: The perceived value 

of direct assessment of students. California School Psychologist, 10, 65–79.

Burns, M., Appleton, J.J., & Stehouwer, J.D. (2005). Meta-analytic review 

of responsiveness-to-intervention 

research: Examining field-based and 

research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 

381–394.

Burns, M.K., & Senesac, B.K. (2005). 

Comparison of dual discrepancy 

criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 

43(5), 393–406.

Burns, M., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2005). 

Comparison of existing responseto-intervention models to identify 

and answer implementation questions. California School Psychologist, 

10, 9–20.

Case, L.P., Speece, D.L., & Molloy, D.E. 

(2003). The validity of a responseto-instruction paradigm to identify 

reading disabilities: A longitudinal 

analysis of individual differences and 

contextual factors. School Psychology 

Review, 32(4), 557–582.

Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept 

for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning 

Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(r), 

204–219.

Griffiths, A-J., Parson, L.B., Burns, 

M.K., VanDerHeyden, A., & Tilly, 

W.D. (2007). Response to intervention: 

Research for practice. Alexandria, VA: 

National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Healy, K., Vanderwood, M., & Edelston, 

D. (2005). Early literacy interventions for English language learners: 

Support for an RTI model. California 

School Psychologist, 10, 55–63.

McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. 

(2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates and eligibility 

findings. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 

181–194.

Oswald, K., Safran, S., & Johanson, G. 

(2005). Preventing trouble: Making 

schools safer places using positive behavior supports. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(3), 265–278.

Skinner, C.H., Williams, R.L., & Neddenriep, C.E. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic 

performance in general education 

classrooms. School Psychology Review, 

33(3), 384–397.

VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & 

Naquin, G. (2003). Development of 

validation of a process for screening 

referrals to special education. School 

Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P.G., LinanThompson, S., & Francis, D.J. 

(2005). Teaching English language 

learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into 

practice. Learning Disabilities Research 

& Practice, 20(1), 58–67.

Photo by Pam Voth
Northwest Education / fall 2008 37

voices

A Father’s Voice: Working With the System By Jim Russo

If Jim Russo had one piece of advice for parents of children needing special interventions, it would be “don’t be afraid to ask and 

ask and ask again.” Russo and his wife Ruth have three boys and 

one girl in the Walla Walla (WA) School District. During the past 

dozen years, they’ve sampled a wide range of educational services from mainstream classes to special education. Russo, an 

associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at 

Whitman College, says clear communication and continuity are 

two things that have mattered most in helping his kids thrive 

academically.

We have kids in 11th, ninth, sixth, and second grade, so we’re 

involved at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. 

Two of our children have had IEPs (individualized education 

plans) while two have been in general education. So, we’ve 

experienced both mainstream classrooms as well as special 

education. One of our children—a sixth-grader—had an IEP 

but just came off it last year; our oldest son [a junior who has 

had an IEP throughout his school career] has remained on an 

IEP for math but has come off the plan for other areas.

I think the reason they’ve been able to achieve that is a 

combination of their own learning progress and having the 

high-attention, one-on-one, or small-group environment 

that the IEPs have provided. In both cases, they were with 

special education teachers in small classrooms with just a few 

students per teacher, and that type of intensive interaction is 

what has been successful in helping them catch up.

When the school district was making the transition to a 

tiered system, the language they were using wasn’t clearly 

communicated to parents and it didn’t seem to be clearly 

known to teachers either. With our first son, it was very confusing because the language describing what kind of class the 

child was in was so different, especially moving from elementary to middle school. Now that the tiers are firmly in place, 

it’s much clearer what those different levels are, in terms of 

general education versus the strategic interventions of Tier II 

versus the more intensive special education. 

It would be easier for parents if the district had given out 

printed materials ahead of time that simply explained what 

tiered instruction was—here’s what it means to have Tier I, 

Tier II, Tier III; this is what we’re trying to do. I realize that’s 

probably not easy to do because of changing facets, but for me 

it would have been useful to have a programmatic booklet or 

brochure.

Our greatest challenge has been when teachers cycle in and 

out: They come in and are involved in a particular intervention 

and then move to another school the next year. You say, “Gosh, 

is that really good for these 

kids overall?” because you see 

how much gain is made when 

teachers work with the same 

child for several years. So, I 

think districts need to think 

ahead and work for continuity 

because that’s critical to making 

it succeed. 

For us, the key has been not 

being afraid to continue to ask 

questions of the people who 

have the opportunity to create 

the best environment for our 

kids. In some ways it may be 

easier for us because my wife 

and I are educators at the college level: We’re comfortable asking questions. We will keep asking if something isn’t clear to us, 

especially when the vocabulary is hard to understand. 

As for the future, like any parent you hope [your kids] can 

pursue that which they’re capable of doing. I think our children will go down very different paths, appropriate to what 

their interests and abilities are. I think our oldest son, who 

is someone who’s had an IEP since elementary school, has 

learned to become a strong advocate for himself and to articulate what strategies he’s needed to succeed in general education 

classes. n
38 nwrel.org/nwedu/

region at a glance

Alaska is using the term “response to 

instruction/intervention” to emphasize that both general and special education are included in the framework. 

The Department of Education & Early 

Development (EED) is working with a 

statewide RTI leadership team to build 

a shared understanding of RTI and to 

provide support for implementation 

throughout the state. They are developing guidance to describe the model, 

including definitions, key components, 

and procedures. EED will also undertake a survey of school districts to identify how RTI is being implemented. 

The Idaho State Department of Education is working with schools and districts that are in different places in their 

RTI efforts. One aspect of the state’s 

work will be helping new sites that are 

just getting started with RTI. Another 

focus for Idaho is on ensuring fidelity 

of implementation in the 210 schools 

that have adopted RTI.

Beginning this fall, Montana’s Office of 

Public Instruction will be working with 

44 schools throughout the state to support implementation of RTI. Through 

this effort, OPI will provide training 

for school teams throughout the year. 

The state is also offering technical assistance to the schools with a team of 

consultants who will be on site one 

day per month. Finally, OPI is providing funding to regional service areas to 

hold introductory RTI trainings. 

The Oregon Department of Education is in the fourth year of the state’s 

RTI initiative. The project has added 

districts every year, with a total of 38 

districts now involved. The state contracts with the Tigard-Tualatin School 

District to provide technical assistance 

to other districts. This year, the initiative has added an RTI center in Southern Oregon located at the Roseburg 

School District. In addition to the RTI 

initiative, ODE was recently awarded a 

five-year federal grant to support seven districts in implementing Effective 

Behavioral and Instructional Support 

Systems (EBISS), a combined model of 

Positive Behavior Support (PBS) and 

RTI.

The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) in Washington 

is working with the state’s educational 

service districts (ESDs) to scale up RTI 

by creating “innovation zones.” The 

project is now in its third year and currently involves 55 pilot sites in 23 districts across the state. The ESDs are 

charged with providing technical assistance to the sites within their service 

areas. OSPI also supports implementation of RTI through its reading initiatives, including Reading First, and is 

expanding into other subject areas. n

RTI in the Northwest: A Regional Roundup By Jennifer Stepanek

Alaska

idaho

oregon

montana

washington
Northwest Education / fall 2008 39

End note

Back to School: Five-Year Trends in the Northwest

Overall Northwest region public school enrollment is flat—barely growing from 2.10 million in fall 2002 to 2.14 million in fall 2007. That’s an 

increase of less than half a percentage point per year.

However, there are great shifts in enrollment among racial/ethnic 

groups. White enrollment is down 6 percent over the five years while 

Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment is up 14 percent and Hispanic enrollment is up 35 percent. American Indian/Alaska Native and black enrollments are nearly unchanged with the former down 2 percent and the 

latter up 1 percent.

Photo by Darin Oswald
nwrel news

40 nwrel.org/nwedu/

The U.S. Department of Education’s national network of comprehensive centers 

helps states adopt proven school improvement practices. One promising approach 

Northwest states are embracing to assist struggling students is the integrated 

system of support known as response 

to intervention (RTI)—a multitiered 

process for coordinating efforts across 

general, remedial, and special education to address a child’s particular needs. 

Headquartered at NWREL, the Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center 

(NWRCC) has been working closely 

with state education agencies (SEAs) 

in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming to guide district and 

school efforts in implementing effective 

and sustainable models of RTI.

Annual Symposia

Since 2006, NWRCC has convened an 

annual symposium for approximately 

60 Northwest state-level representatives to further their understanding of 

RTI. According to coordinator Melinda Leong, “We want to help SEA leaders consider the essential components 

of RTI, identify strategies for successful 

implementation, and explore critical 

elements of RTI evaluation.” Symposia 

thus far have covered strategies for using RTI as a framework for improving 

student learning; matching instruction 

to the needs of all students; and meeting the needs of significantly struggling 

learners in high schools. This summer’s event built on previous meetings 

to focus on evaluating RTI initiatives at 

the state, district, and school levels.

State Projects

NWRCC also provides technical assistance to SEAs in the development of 

individual RTI projects. NWREL’s Lynette Thompson and Melinda Leong, 

who coordinate NWRCC’s RTI activities, outlined states’ current initiatives. 

Montana: NWRCC is working with 

a steering committee on a guidance 

document for districts that will suggest various combinations of funding 

sources for RTI. Many people assume 

that RTI funding can only come from 

special education, but money from 

other initiatives, such as Title I, can also 

be used.

Idaho: NWRCC is assisting in the 

development of a leadership team on 

statewide implementation of RTI. Team 

members include content-area specialists, parents, superintendents, special 

and general education teachers, university representatives, and others. Involving multiple stakeholders is intended to 

improve sustainability of RTI projects.

Oregon: This state is one of six selected to participate in a national effort 

coordinated by the State Implementation of Scaling-up Evidence-based 

Practices (SISEP) Center. According to 

a June 20, 2008, press release from the 

U.S. Department of Education, “The 

purpose of SISEP is to promote student academic achievement and behavioral health by supporting implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based 

practices in education settings.” Oregon chose an integrated RTI approach 

known as EBISS (Effective Behavioral 

and Instructional Support Systems) 

for its scale-up project. Oregon now 

has 99 elementary schools implementing EBISS and Thompson says this effort may eventually result in statewide 

implementation of this framework. 

Wyoming: NWRCC is helping administer a needs assessment survey to 

be completed by all elementary school 

administration and staff. The survey is 

intended to define schools’ RTI needs, 

as well as their current practices. The 

state will use the survey data to guide 

projects and activities, and get a sense of 

what schools are already doing. Thompson explained that schools may launch 

an RTI system without state agency 

knowledge or resource support. States 

want to understand who’s using RTI and 

to what degree so that they can design 

supports to best meet school needs.

Webinars

Additional assistance from NWRCC 

includes a series of Webinars for the 

2008–2009 school year. These Webinars are a practical, cost-effective way 

for NWRCC to share RTI best practices and lessons learned from around 

the country. Topics will include: 

• National guidance regarding RTI 

funding sources

• Sharing Wyoming’s needs assessment survey data (as a way to help 

other states replicate the model)

• Presenting different ways to analyze data for evaluation (followup from this summer’s evaluation 

symposium)

• Helping states develop fidelity of 

implementation tools 

While NWRCC is under contract to 

provide assistance specifically to state 

education agencies, its Web site links to 

RTI resources and implementation research, in addition to RTI information 

from all Northwest SEAs. To see the 

list, visit www.nwrel.org/nwrcc/rti/. n

NWRCC Helps States Build, Support, and Sustain RTI Systems

Lynette Thompson Melinda Leong
Northwest Education / fall 2008 41

NWREL Well-Equipped To Evaluate RTI Programs

The response to intervention (RTI) framework has become a widespread method

for differentiating instruction for all 

students and identifying appropriate interventions for children requiring extra 

academic and behavioral support. As 

more schools and districts implement 

RTI, it is important to evaluate program 

effectiveness. The Center for Research, 

Evaluation, and Assessment (CREA) at 

NWREL has the capacity and expertise 

to perform high-quality evaluations that 

comply with federal or state mandates 

for program accountability. 

Under the direction of Theresa 

Deussen, CREA’s Language and Literacy Unit has served as the external evaluator of federal Reading First grants for 

six western states since 2004. As a threetiered intervention program focused on 

K–3 reading instruction, Reading First 

is among the most prevalent examples 

of RTI implementation in the country. 

To date, Reading First is described by 

the federal government as “the largest 

and most focused early reading initiative ever undertaken in this country.” 

CREA evaluators have worked with 

more than 300 schools that received 

Reading First grants, analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. These 

data are derived from student assessments; surveys of principals, teachers, 

and reading coaches; interviews with 

reading coaches, principals, and teachers; classroom observations; and focus 

groups with reading leadership teams. 

CREA recently published the study 

Does Reading First Work? Data Trends From 

Evaluations in Five Western States (www.

nwrel.org/crea/pdf/rf-trends.pdf) and 

has collected information that can help 

states and districts learn from each 

other’s best practices. With this experience, the Language and Literacy Unit is 

well-equipped to assess how well RTI 

models are working to support struggling learners, and what schools can do 

to achieve better results.

RTI requires the coordination of 

special and general education services. 

Two of CREA’s evaluators are experienced in this kind of service coordination. Caitlin Scott—an Ed.D. who holds 

a master’s degree in special education 

and taught in that field—is conducting 

a study of the challenges associated with 

implementing intervention models. 

Richard Smiley has extensive experience in evaluating district programs for 

compliance with state and federal regulations in special education and assessment. Before joining NWREL, Smiley 

worked at the Alaska Department of 

Education & Early Development, with 

14 years in special education and four 

(From left to right) Caitlin Scott, Theresa Deussen, and Richard Smiley of NWREL’s Center for 

Research, Evaluation, and Assessment

years as the state director of the Office 

of Assessment and Data Management.

 Each state or district will have a 

unique set of concerns related to its RTI 

program, but questions may include: 

• Is the RTI model being implemented as designed at the district, school, 

and classroom levels? 

• How has RTI impacted student 

achievement?

• How have special education referrals 

been affected by RTI?

• What are the perceived obstacles to 

full implementation of the model? 

• What sustainability challenges might 

participating schools prepare for and 

what is the state’s potential ability to 

scale up its RTI model (i.e., spread 

RTI to additional schools/districts)? 

A comprehensive RTI evaluation 

by CREA can provide answers to these 

questions, as well as other issues the client and evaluator identify as important.

According to Scott, evaluations can 

be used for multiple purposes. “Information can be used to make formative 

decisions, such as changing some aspect of implementation, professional 

development for staff, methods of 

communicating among staff members, 

or ways of storing data,” she explains. 

“Clients also often use our evaluations 

summatively to report to stakeholders 

on the success of their program.”

Learn more about CREA’s full 

scope of evaluation services by visiting 

www.nwrel.org/evaluation/. To discuss 

bringing CREA to your state or district 

for third-party evaluation of your RTI 

program, contact Theresa Deussen at 

800-547-6339, ext. 685, or deussent@

nwrel.org. n
42 nwrel.org/nwedu/

Northwest School Support Staff 

Convene at NWREL

School support teams and SEA representatives from each of the Northwest 

states met at NWREL July 1 to share 

information and identify regional 

needs. The forum, led by the Center 

for School and District Improvement’s 

Deborah Davis, looked at challenges 

and support systems for the teams. 

Under No Child Left Behind, states 

are required to provide teams or distinguished educators to assist schools or 

districts in need of improvement. The 

forum featured a panel of SEA leaders on how school support teams are 

recruited and assigned; how schools 

are matched with them; and how the 

state supervises and evaluates the work. 

In cross-state groups, participants discussed challenges they’ve overcome, 

how they’ve been supported in their 

role, and what they need to do their 

work better.

“The forum brought people together for cross-pollination and helped us 

determine how we can best support 

this work,” says Davis. NWREL has 

trained school coaches in Montana and 

also helped develop and train school 

improvement coordinators in Oregon. 

The one-day meeting was intended to 

build on that work. Davis says one expansion in the works is modifying the 

Web site designed for Oregon coaches, 

so it can be used by other states and can 

link to IES materials on turning around 

chronically low-performing schools.

First Small Learning Community

Conference a Success

More than 500 high school leaders 

from Hawaii to Massachusetts and 24 

other states convened in Las Vegas in 

June for the first annual conference, 

From Structure to Instruction: Sharing Best Practices and Lessons Learned 

in Small Learning Communities and 

Small Schools. 

During the first two days of the conference, participants chose from nearly 

50 sessions presented by practitioners 

with frontline experience leading their 

high school’s restructuring efforts. 

Closing the achievement gap, interdisciplinary collaboration, rigorous and 

relevant curriculum, and instructional 

program coherence were some of the 

issues addressed. 

The final day of the conference was 

dedicated to personalized coaching sessions. Coaches shared strategies they’ve 

found successful in bringing their small 

learning communities to full implementation. Participants left with plans to 

bring back to their schools incorporating information gathered during the sessions and steps to apply that information 

in developing or strengthening their 

small learning community structures. 

Deussen Honored at NWREL’s 

Anniversary Celebration

In June, NWREL celebrated 42 years of 

linking research to practices that benefit schools and communities in the 

Northwest region and beyond. Staff 

and board members were recognized 

for their hard work in developing creative and practical solutions to a broad 

spectrum of educational challenges 

during the year. 

Theresa Deussen, head of NWREL’s 

Language and Literacy Unit, was presented the 2008 Jerry Kirkpatrick Award 

for Special Achievement. Deussen directs the statewide evaluations of federal Reading First grants in six western 

states. Her unit is also responsible for 

evaluating Washington state’s Secondary English Language Learner Demonstration sites and summarizing the research on effective classroom practices 

with English language learners. Deussen was recognized for her exemplary 

leadership. She, in turn, credited her 

success as a manager to her collaborative, dedicated, and talented staff.

Summer Math Institutes Conducted 

in Montana and Washington

NWREL’s Mathematics Education 

Unit held five-day institutes for elementary teachers in two Northwest 

locales this summer. During these institutes, teachers of grades K–2 explore 

a variety of activities to expand their 

knowledge of number sense and algebraic reasoning. Participants learn how 

children develop these foundational 

concepts and what instructional strategies help students grasp them. Teachers 

of grades 3–5 delve into the integration 

of arithmetic and algebra in the elementary classroom. Topics such as using relational thinking, understanding 

Flashback

nwrel news
Northwest Education / fall 2008 43

equality, and representing conjectures 

are covered.

An institute for K–2 teachers was 

sponsored by ESD 101 in Spokane. 

Separate institutes for the two grade 

clusters were held for 55 elementary 

teachers and their principals for the 

Helena School District. 

6+1 Trait® Writing Institutes Reach 

Far and Wide This Summer

Grand Rapids, Michigan, was the 

venue for an introductory institute in 

the traits in early August. Participants 

from across the globe learned how to 

implement trait-based instruction and 

evaluate student writing across “6+1” 

dimensions of performance. 

NWREL’s Center for Research, 

Evaluation, and Assessment (CREA) 

conducts several introductory and training of trainer institutes throughout the 

year. The July trainers institute on the 

Oregon coast sold out to an assembly of 

educators from 18 states plus Canada, 

Korea, Kuwait, Panama, and Thailand. 

CREA had 27 contracted workshops 

in August, for districts from Virginia 

to California—reaching approximately 

1,000 teachers that month alone. The 

annual October introductory institute 

took place in Cannon Beach, Oregon. 

Upcoming events include a trainers institute in San Antonio, Texas, December 2–4, and an introductory institute 

December 9–12 in Portland, Oregon.

Visit www.nwrel.org/events/ for details on this upcoming event. Contact 

Mark Workman (800-547-6339, ext. 

572) to set up an on-site workshop for 

your school or district. 

ELL Advisory Panel Provides 

Invaluable Expertise 

The Washington state Legislature has 

charged NWREL with summarizing 

existing research and consulting with 

nationally recognized experts to address two questions:

• What foundational competencies 

should regular classroom teachers 

have in order to work effectively with 

English language learners (ELLs)?

• How should ESL teachers and regular classroom teachers work together for the benefit of their English 

language learners?

Accordingly, NWREL invited a 

group of nationally recognized scholars and researchers of ELL instruction 

to sit on an advisory panel to guide 

NWREL in accomplishing this work. 

Panelists are: 

• Rain Bongolan, Program Director, 

ELL and Adolescent Literacy Instruction, University of California, 

Santa Cruz 

• Penny Collins, Assistant Professor 

of Education, University of California, 

Irvine

• Russell Gersten, Executive Director, 

IRG Research Group

• Claude Goldenberg, Professor of 

Education, Stanford University

• Okhee Lee, Professor of Education, 

University of Miami

• Deborah J. Short, Senior Research 

Associate, Center for Applied 

Linguistics

The panel’s first meeting in April 

2008 acquainted members with the 

project scope and intended use of the 

report, solicited input on the direction 

of the literature search, and asked panelists for feedback on an early draft. The 

second meeting in August focused on 

panelist feedback on a second draft of 

the report, with particular attention to 

the importance and order of principles 

and instructional implications derived 

from the research base. n
View NWREL’s complete product catalog and check out our easy and secure online ordering 

system at www.nwrel.org/books/

Our complete catalog of education services is available at www.nwrel.org/edservices/

NWREL products and services

44 nwrel.org/nwedu/

Improving Adolescent Mathematics 

Learning 

Through customized training and ongoing support, middle and high school 

teachers examine and apply research 

on adolescent mathematics in sessions 

tailored to meet the needs of individual 

schools and districts. Teachers explore 

answers to questions such as: 

• What does mathematical literacy for 

secondary students look like today? 

• What building and district support 

does research suggest for struggling 

learners? 

• What research-based practices promote the development of mathematical skills? 

• What assessment practices can identify students’ mathematical needs? 

• What professional development 

practices are associated with improving mathematical thinking, problem 

solving, and reasoning? 

• How can teachers work collaboratively to improve student learning?

This professional development may 

consist of a combination of the following components, depending on your 

school or district’s needs:

• A series of workshops on researchbased best practices for mathematics

• Ongoing coaching focused on implementing workshop strategies

• Video Study Groups, facilitated by 

NWREL, in which teachers examine and discuss videotapes of their 

own classroom instruction

• Online discussions and assignments 

(Participants will be given access to 

a Web site providing assignments, 

discussion forums on topics related to the readings, and Web-based 

resources.)

Contact Linda Griffin, 800-547-

6339, ext. 169, griffinl@nwrel.org; 

www.nwrel.org/math/.

Books and Tools for Professional 

Educators, 2008–2009

NWREL’s most recent catalog is filled 

with publications, instructional tools, 

and available services to meet a wide 

range of professional development 

and school improvement needs. New 

products and services as well as many 

best sellers on 6+1 Trait® Writing, Wee 

CanTM Write, math, reading and literacy, student engagement, and more are 

featured. 

Discounts for NWREL members—

anyone employed with one of the 982 

member education agencies and organizations in the Northwest region—

are available.

The services and products described 

in this section represent a sampling of 

NWREL’s newest offerings. Look for 

your catalog in the mail, or call 888-

827-7241 to request a free copy. Check 

NWREL’s online catalog at www.nwrel.

org/books/ regularly for new additions.

Lenses on Learning: Mathematics 

Professional Development for 

Administrators 

These courses address issues important 

to school administrators and instructional leaders seeking to support standards-based mathematics instruction 

in their schools and districts. Through 

a variety of activities, participants will 

delve into these issues during a series 

of three modules:

1. Instructional Leadership in Mathematics: What are the new understandings about the nature of mathematics 

learning and teaching that underlie 

standards-based instruction? Explore 

fundamental issues and implications 

for school leadership.

2. Teacher Learning for Mathematics Instruction: What do teachers need 

to learn and how can they succeed? Focus on issues teachers grapple with in 

learning to teach according to the new 

standards and study criteria for effective professional development across 

the school community.

3. Observing Today’s Mathematics 

Classroom: How can we tell what is going on in standards-based mathematics 

classrooms, and how can we tell when 

instruction is working? Learn what to 

look for when conducting classroom 

observations and what to discuss when 

meeting with the teacher about those 

observations.

Participants will carry out guided assignments in their schools and form an 

intellectual community as they reflect 

on new ideas and consider their implications for best practice as administrators 

and instructional leaders.

Each module consists of four or five 

sessions that can be facilitated during 

consecutive days or scheduled over the 

course of the school year.

Contact Melinda Leong, 800-547-

6339, ext. 172, leongm@nwrel.org; 

www.nwrel.org/math/.
To order: nwrel.org/comm/catalog/ or call 800-547-6339, ext. 519 45

Listening to Student Voices Tools

Listening to Student Voices is a set of 

tools for K–12 educational leaders and 

school-based teams interested in including students in continuous school 

improvement. These tools:

• Allow schools to listen to students’ 

ideas for improving their school 

• Promote student leadership 

• Develop students’ critical thinking 

skills

• Encourage relationships within a 

school 

• Are research based and field tested 

With a wide range of applicability, 

most schools need some level of support in using these adaptable tools. To 

this end, NWREL offers services in 

which participants will learn to:

• Use a set of tools that maximizes 

student involvement in a school 

improvement process

• Examine student data as a basis for 

school change

• Build a more collaborative culture, 

particularly among students and 

between students and adults 

Services can be customized for 

all teachers and administrators; for a 

school leadership team or site council; 

or for students who will lead the school 

improvement activities. Services ranging from planning advice, a short training, or a full-scale facilitation of the 

Listening to Student Voices process are 

available.

Participating schools will receive 

copies of the Listening to Student 

Voices tools and an individualized final report on any process that NWREL

facilitates.

Contact Jacqueline Raphael, 800-

547-6339, ext. 616, or raphaelj@nwrel.

org; www.nwrel.org/csdi/services/lsv/.

From High School to Learning 

Communities—Five Domains of Best 

Practice

Research demonstrates that small learning communities (SLCs) can have positive effects on student achievement and 

attendance. This set offers a knowledge 

base, tools, and resources for implementing and deepening SLC practice 

and guides readers through the domains 

required to transform a 20th century 

comprehensive high school into a 21st 

century learning organization: (1) Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning 

Teams, (2) Rigorous, Relevant Curriculum and Instruction, (3) Inclusive 

Program and Instructional Practices, 

(4) SLC-Based Continuous Program 

Improvement, and (5) Building and 

District Support for SLCs.

This set contains tools designed to 

help educators pursue a cyclical process of planning and improving SLC 

practice. The user-friendly, reproducible set of tools and templates are for 

assessing one’s practice in each of the 

five SLC domains, including instructions for conducting a gap analysis between existing and desired practice and 

creating implementation plans. (2008; 

2 booklets of 162 pp. total and one CD)

Member price: $30 + shipping 

Nonmember price: $33 + shipping

The writing process and traits poster

The 6+1 Trait® model and the writing process complement each other 

perfectly when it comes to teaching 

writing—the process provides the 

structure while the traits provide the 

content. Post this big, bright poster in 

your classroom to show your students 

precisely where the traits align with the 

writing process. (36 by 24 inches) 

Member price: $9.75 + shipping 

Nonmember price: $10.75 + shipping
Nonprofit org.

U.S. Postage

PAID Portland, OrEGon

Permit no. 250

Northwest regional Educational Laboratory

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500

Portland, Oregon 97204

www.nwrel.org/nwedu/

For questions regarding 

Northwest Education

call 503-275-9518

For all other inquiries 

regarding NWREL

call 503-275-9500

Northwest

education

nwrel.org/nwedu/

Northwest Education is available online in both PDF and html versions.

Look for Web exclusives. 

Up next in the winter issue:

Civic engagement