Date of Award

2012

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)

Department

History

Abstract

The intention of this study was to examine three factors regarding the implementation of the Response to Intervention (RtI) model. First, the study discovered what professional development opportunities were afforded to administrators and certified faculty to support the implementation of the RtI model within schools that make AYP and those that did not make AYP. Second, the study investigated the awareness and utilization of Early Intervening funds within schools that make AYP and those that did not make AYP. Lastly, this study examined how schools monitor student progress within the RtI model for schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. School district administrators are expected to implement the expectations of change, improvement, and reform as federal and state legislation dictates (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The connection between NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) exists in a number of areas such as eligibility and evaluations, AYP and accountability, assessments, studies, and research (Norlin, 2005; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The relationship between the NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) advocate that all students be supported by all stakeholders within the school, regardless of their academic ability or disability this has caused a paradigm shift in education.

A qualitative research method was used due to the open-ended nature of the research questions. Information gleaned from the questionnaires revealed that nearly half of the building level administrators in both groups reported that they were not aware of the Early Intervening funds. For schools that Met AYP, 86% of the building level administrators in this study do not have Early Intervening funds as part of the building-based budget. All of the building level administrators for schools that Did Not Meet AYP in this study that provided an answer in the questionnaire, stated that they do not have Early Intervening funds as part of the building-based budget. A majority of the building level administrators in this study reported using AIMSweb, a progress monitoring program; 81% of schools that Met AYP and 86% of schools that Did Not Meet AYP. In contrast, all (100%) of the building level administrators in this study, for schools that Did Not Meet AYP reported multiple types of programs or resources that included progress monitoring, intervention materials, and summative tests.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Share

COinS