Stebick Dissertation 6.24 09

DISSERTATION

A Case Study Investigating the Implications of Change as Instructional Leaders Implement IDEIA’s Response to Intervention Policy

by

Divonna M. Stebick

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studieswith a concentration in Public Policy

June 24, 2009

Dissertation Chair: Sean Robinson, Ph. D.

Dissertation Committee Members: Bernice Ledbetter, Ed.D. & Michael Raffanti, Ph.D.

Union Institute & UniversityCincinnati, Ohio

A Case Study Investigating the Implications of Change as Instructional Leaders Implement IDEIA’s Response to Intervention Policy

By

Divonna M. Stebick

Baccalaureate degree: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, May 1995

Master’s Degree: McDaniel College, May 2000

Graduate CollegeUnion Institute & University

Cincinnati, Ohio

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of multiple

stakeholders related to the transitions during the implementation of a new policy change.

Using a single case study of a rural school in a central Pennsylvania district responding to

the federal and state Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEIA) accountability

pressures allowed the researcher to present an analysis of the positions of the

stakeholders and policy implementation during the process of change. Using Rosenfield

and Gravois’ (1996) adaptation of Satir’s (1988) Model of Change with Bryant’s (2004)

Leadership’s Effect on Knowledge and Performance framework and Bridge’s (1991)

conceptual understanding of how organizations manage transitions, I developed the

framework to include a five-stage transition process that describes the effects each stage

has on thinking, feelings, performance, problem-solving ability, the concept of interaction

between instructional leaders and stakeholders, and feedback as decisions evolve.

Findings from the study led to three major conclusions. In order for a collaborative

district to effectively and efficiently move through the process of change, stakeholders

need to: (a) clearly define the policy implementation standards, (b) embrace a

professional development system which includes opportunities for knowledge creating,

knowledge sharing, knowledge exploiting, and innovation through clear communication,

and (c) inspire one another through actions and words.

i

Acknowledgements

I feel very blessed to have received so much support throughout this process of

intellectual and personal growth. First, thank you to my dissertation chair and committee

members, Professors Sean Robinson, Bernice Ledbetter, and Michael Raffanti. Your

guidance has been invaluable. Dr. Robinson, thank you for giving me the freedom to

explore new ideas on my own but being there to provide guidance when my thinking

became too chaotic, too global, or simply irrelevant. Your focused feedback taught me

how to be precise about concepts and to continue to pursue my curiosity to answer your

infamous question; “So what?” Dr. Ledbetter, thank you for encouraging me to think

hard and deep from our first class together. You helped me to conceptualize my thinking

in a visual way for others to understand. Dr. Raffanti, thank you for sharing your

research methodology expertise in an inviting way. You challenged my research skills in

a way that I never thought I could accomplish. To the eight case study stakeholders, I

cannot thank you enough. You took a new colleague into your life and were willing to

share your experiences, your thinking, your questions, your concerns, and your

professional goals with me. Thank you for making me think, laugh, and cry. I am deeply

honored that you allowed me to be part of your life during these intense times of

transition. I hope we can continue our relationships in the years to come. I hope this

narrative brings the real concerns of educational policy implementation to the forefront,

where it belongs.

Also thank you to everyone in my professional community who stretched and

ii

nudged me along the way to give me the mentoring and support I needed: Stephen

Mergner for teaching me how to be a doctoral student, researcher, and writer, Barbara

Walker for reading so many rough drafts, Carol Rinke for pulling me out of my “Great

Valley of Despair,” Debra Miller for believing in me, Jonelle Pool for being an APA

guide, and last, but certainly not least, my Cohort I friends: you made this journey worth

the travels through the deep valleys and atop the high mountains. This process has been

more life-changing than I ever could have imagined when I first met you in July 2006.

Thank you.

Finally, thank you to my family. First my mother Linda Mohr, for supporting my

passion and determination to pursue my professional dreams while juggling motherhood,

for being that extra set of hands when meals needed cooked, rooms needed cleaned, and

when the boys needed you. To my dad Bill Mohr, for challenging my aspirations before I

spent too much time and too many resources chasing an unfulfilling dream. To my oldest

son Jarrod, for believing in me and asking when the dissertation would be done. Your

questions reminded me why I was working so hard to earn a Ph.D. To my youngest son

Jonathan, for the early morning cuddles you shared. Your cuddles broke many writing

blocks! And of course, to my husband Tim Stebick. As you yourself share with so many

friends and family, I changed through this journey. You were there while I mentally

worked through so many new ideas and theories. As I continued to work very early each

morning, I could hear the hum of the dryer that you continued to load the night before.

Thank you for the clean clothes! Most importantly, thank you for the sacrifices you made.

iii

Thank you for believing in me. Thank you for standing by me as I came out of this

cocoon. Thank you.

iv

Dedicated to Jonathan and Jarrod, who asked me why.

And to my students, wherever you may be, may you always model life long learning

and advocate for educating all.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................iAcknowledgements.............................................................................................................iiDedication ...........................................................................................................................vTable of Contents................................................................................................................vi Chapter One: Introduction..................................................................................................1 Purpose Statement.....................................................................................................3 Design of Study.........................................................................................................3 Significance of Study.................................................................................................4 Key Terms.................................................................................................................7

Chapter Two: Literature Review........................................................................................9 Stakeholder Theory Implications .............................................................................10 Historical Context of Stakeholder Theory & Ethical Considerations......................16 Decision Making Processes for Educational Policy Change....................................18 Leadership for Policy Change..................................................................................20 Instructional Leadership...........................................................................................30 Leadership Through Transitions During a Period of Policy Change........................31 Government Influences on Educational Trends........................................................34 RtI Implications........................................................................................................38 RtI Within NCLB and IDEIA...................................................................................42 Implications of Policy Initiatives..............................................................................46 Theoretical Framework.............................................................................................49 Chapter Three: Methodology.............................................................................................59 Research Design.......................................................................................................59 Methodology.............................................................................................................62 Participants...............................................................................................................66 Profile of Research Site............................................................................................66 Demographics of the District & Elementary School................................................66 Individual Stakeholders............................................................................................69 Data Collection.........................................................................................................76 Interviews and Observations ...................................................................................77 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................81 Trustworthiness & Confirmability of the Findings..................................................85 Human Subject Consideration..................................................................................86 Limitations................................................................................................................87

vi

Role of the Researcher..............................................................................................87

Chapter Four: Findings.....................................................................................................90 Policy Perceptions........ ..........................................................................................91 Policy Misperception: RtI as a Special Education Identification Process...............94 Policy Implementation.............................................................................................95 Perceptions and Recommendations for Change Process........................................102

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................108 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................108 Conclusions of RtI Implications Through the Lens of Stakeholder Theory...........114 Key Findings .........................................................................................................118 Recommendations..................................................................................................122 Recommendations for School System Professional Development ........................123 Recommendations for Essential Staff Resources...................................................125 Further Research Related to RtI Implementation & Change Process....................126

Abbreviations...................................................................................................................130

References........................................................................................................................131

List of FiguresFigure One: Organizational Change Theoretical Framework ...........................................52Figure Two: Stakeholders’ Identification Within Satir’s Model of Change....................103Figure Three: Organizational Change Theoretical Framework - Revised ......................111Figure Four: Satir’s Model of Change ............................................................................156

List of TablesTable One: Description of Participants .............................................................................75Table Two: Perceptions Related to Understanding RtI ....................................................93Table Three: Recommendations from Stakeholder Theory to Facilitate Movement Through the Change Process........................................................106, 109Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Stakeholders...........................................................151Appendix B: Observation Review Form..........................................................................157Appendix C: Informed Consent Form.............................................................................159

vii

Chapter I

Introduction and Importance of Problem

Overview

School districts face the challenging task of meeting the requirements of the

public policy Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEIA) while still ensuring

student success and academic achievement. The IDEIA is the primary federal program

that authorizes state and local aid for special education and related services for children

with disabilities. While recent governmental decisions such as IDEIA have brought

education to the media’s front burner, researchers must consider analyzing the school

district’s decision-making process through multiple lenses. Traditionally, a decision-

making process has been looked at by education associations, education administrators,

and education researchers, but it is time to look at the process through a new lens. A

more contemporary approach would include stakeholder theory, thereby expanding the

research of those involved in the decision-making process. The problem is that we do not

understand the implications of stakeholder theory on education policy change; the

subject is missing from the literature. I proposed to demonstrate how external

accountability factors and multiple stakeholders drive instructional decisions to improve

student achievement. I explained how public policy theory has a home within the

theoretical framework of stakeholder theory. Public policy is not just a required political

process; it is a social process that infuses stakeholder positions and societal needs

(Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004; Harrington, 1996). Since the Greeks, polis has been

1

defined as the people’s work in a participatory form of government. Public policy is an

expression of community norms. Community norms include various factors, including

but not limited to the influential external factors warranted by various stakeholders.

External accountability factors include, but are not limited to, the mandates from

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Other external accountability factors include

district self-study reports, local funding mandates, annual yearly progress rates for grant

funding, teacher performance, and student performance. Multiple stakeholders support

and influence these external factors. Students, teachers, instructional leaders, district

administrators, community members, school board members, and government officials

are the stakeholders who influence and implement the policies that affect the most critical

accountability factor, student achievement. My research demonstrated how public policy

infuses the views of multiple stakeholders within a small school district concerning the

mandates of government legislation designed to improve student achievement in first

grade classrooms.

Studying this process in the moment allowed the evaluation of the level of

influence various stakeholders have on the actual process, the implications of

collaboration at multiple levels, and the prioritization of agendas. The level of

instructional intensity delivered by classroom teachers depends upon how instructional

leaders interpret the district’s policies, how resources are allocated, and how the

expectations for teachers are evaluated. These critical decisions have serious

consequences for student achievement and therefore were analyzed.

2

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of multiple

stakeholders related to the transitions during the implementation of a new policy change.

Design of Study

The Multiple Stakeholder Change Process Conceptual Framework demonstrated the

impact the positions of stakeholders have on policy implementation (Brazer & Peters,

2007; Bryant, 2004; Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996; and Satir, 1988). I investigated the

subtlety and complexity of the transitions encountered during a process of policy change.

In Apple Valley Area School District, this change was a decision to implement the RtI

process for all struggling students in all schools. My primary research questions

included: How do the positions of the various stakeholders impact the transition of a new

policy implementation aimed at special education identification? What elements are

necessary at various stages within the change process to assist the school district? Why?

During the process, I explained leadership choices regarding how the district

decides to change, the degree to which specific decisions were made collaboratively, and

how the district communicated its change to individual schools. This research provided

one example of how stakeholder positions impact the process of change during a new

policy implementation.

3

Significance of Study

The multiple stakeholders mentioned above from other school systems, other state

departments of education, local school board members, district administrators,

instructional leaders, teachers, and parents may find these findings valuable for a number

of reasons. School districts may be able to develop professional development programs

to ensure that teachers employ best-practice instructional strategies. Instructional leaders

may develop a new understanding of how to allocate resources efficiently in order to

meet the needs of their at-risk students. Teachers may be able to intervene more

efficiently to accelerate a child’s academic achievement. Parents may be reassured that

their child’s educational program is designed to meet his or her needs. These findings

may strengthen the decision-making process within other school systems that struggle

with similar issues of meeting external accountability factors while ensuring multiple

stakeholders’ concerns are addressed. These school systems may be able to accelerate

their policy implementation by implementing recommendations from this study.

The findings from my study suggest that the previous IDEA legislation failed to

meet effectively the needs of all identified students. Since the reauthorization of the

IDEIA, disagreement about the IQ achievement discrepancy model has emerged as an

issue that continues to escalate and impact district decision making (Fletcher, 1995;

Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Harry & Klingner, 2007;

Stanovich, 1999; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Most arguments center on the fact that the

special education identification processes are not accurate since there have been a high

4

number of students misidentified as learning disabled (LD) over the past 20 years (Fuchs

& Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Harry & Klingner, 2007; Vaughn

& Fuchs, 2003). Other arguments focus on the costs of the discrepancy model; these

costs include capital resources, human resources, and the resource of time. Fuchs and

Fuchs (2006) found that in one state, even within one district, there may be a school or

system with a high number of students with LD while another has few. “Some research

has even shown that the same team using the discrepancy model will not identify the

same students as having a LD” in a replicated setting (Council for Exceptional Children,

2006, p.1). One of the most pressing arguments is that students must be in third or fourth

grade to have a discrepancy large enough to be identified as learning disabled (Fuchs &

Fuchs, 2006). This delay encourages a destructive cycle of failure, low self-esteem, and

lowered achievement (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). Further, IQ tests often

are biased against certain racial or ethnic groups. Response to Intervention (RtI) changed

the mindset around reading disabilities and special education (Walser, 2007). RtI

assumes that all children can learn to read, which nearly all can (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;

Wasler, 2007). RtI supporters continue to criticize the discrepancy model.

RtI supporters contend that the discrepancy model makes early intervention nearly

impossible. Since IQ tests are administered most reliably when children are in second or

third grade, children cannot be labeled as disabled until it is almost too late. By the end

of third grade, children often are expected to be ready to make the transition from

“learning to read” to “reading to learn.” Consequently many RtI supporters identify the

5

discrepancy method as the “wait to fail” model (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

RtI is a way to structure early intervention, especially in preK-3, in order to

identify learning problems, including those due to lack of exposure to quality teaching.

Most applications of RtI involve a three-tier structure (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The basic

level of intervention is the general classroom, where teachers use evidence-based reading

curricula. If students do not respond sufficiently to the teacher’s instruction, they are

placed in small groups with other students who are struggling in similar ways. These

small groups are the second tier. This intervention is a short period of more intensive,

systematic, explicit, and expert-driven instruction. The students’ progress is monitored

closely at this tier. Students who are determined to be non-responsive at this level of

intervention may be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team to see if special education is

needed or they may be sent directly to special education. Special education is the third

tier of intervention where students most often receive one-on-one instruction. It is critical

for all stakeholders to understand the type of intense instruction that is required to ensure

students meet success with tier three instruction. Consequently, stakeholders may be

informed by instructional leaders who have this expertise throughout the decision-making

process in order to alleviate some of the anxiety which may surface during the process of

change.

6

Key Terms Used

Stakeholder Theory - According to Freeman (1984) “a stakeholder in an organization is

any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the

organization’s objectives” (p. 46).

Educational leadership is a program of study which focuses on the process for

development, implementation, and generation of outcomes in the organization and

management of K-12 education. This program provides participants the skills needed to

design and implement strategies that improve practice and outcomes in K-12 educational

organizations.

Instructional Leaders - I referred to Hallinger’s (2003, 2000; and Hallinger & Murphy,

1985) comprehensive research to provide the most practical definition of instructional

leaders. By defining the school’s mission, the instructional leader frames the goals of the

school and communicates these goals through print and actions. Instructional leaders

who manage the instructional program ensure that the school meets annual yearly

progress by supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum to ensure that

state standards are met, and monitoring student progress. The instructional leader

promotes a positive school learning climate by protecting instructional time, promoting

professional development for all faculty and staff, maintaining accessibility to all

teachers, and providing incentives for teachers and for student learning.

Response to Intervention - RtI is a multi-tiered approach to assist struggling learners.

Students’ progress is monitored closely at each stage of intervention to determine the

7

need for further research-based instruction and/or intervention in general education, in

special education, or both.

8

Chapter II

Literature Review

This literature review covers twelve areas: (a) stakeholder theory implications; (b)

historical context of stakeholder theory; (c) decision-making processes for policy change;

(d) leadership for policy change; (e) instructional leadership; (f) leadership through

transitions during a period of policy change; (g) government influence on educational

trends; (h) RtI implications; (i) RtI within NCLB and IDEIA; (j) conclusions about RtI

implications within stakeholder theory; (k) implications of policy initiatives; and (l)

change process conceptual framework. In the first section, stakeholder theory

implication, stakeholder theory will be shared in an historical context to highlight the

implications of transitioning during a period of change within this case study. The change

process section will identify research which emphasizes the importance of analyzing the

positions and transitions of stakeholders during the implementation of a new policy.

The role of the instructional leader is described within the context of a stakeholder who is

held accountable for student achievement. The instructional leader’s role will connect to

the government’s influence on trends in our public educational institutions. Finally, the

conclusions of current RtI legislation are examined within the context of stakeholder

theory. This extensive literature review identifies the need for further research into how

educational policies are interpreted by multiple stakeholders in both general education

and special education. My research seeks to close the gap within this interdisciplinary

literature review centering on the lack of information that investigates transitions ensued

9

during a period of educational policy change.

Stakeholder Theory Implications

Freeman (1984) created the foundational stakeholder concept, and provided us a

broad audience in examining an organization. “A stakeholder in an organization is any

group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s

objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Previously, Abrams (1951) urged corporate leaders

to concentrate on their constituents, an idea which was implemented by the Committee

for Economic Development (1971) twenty years later. This concentration in the

corporate world fueled further developments within stakeholder theory, which argued that

an organization has relationships with many constituent groups and that it can engender

and maintain the support of these groups by considering and balancing relevant interests

(Clarkson, 1998; Evan & Freeman, 1993; Freeman, 1984; Jones & Wicks, 1999).

There is a gap in the research regarding the implications of stakeholder theory

within how educational institutions implement new policies. Educational institutions

operate differently than do corporations, yet both have critical stakeholders who have

critical needs that must be addressed. It is difficult to balance the needs of various

stakeholders. Educational institutions often must prioritize these needs based upon those

stakeholders who are most vocal. Consequently, if one group of stakeholders is not very

vocal, their needs often are unmet. The many stakeholders who influence school district

policies include students, parents, teachers, instructional leaders, district administrators,

school board members, state department officials, legislators, and the United States

10

Department of Education.

Donaldson & Preston (1995) reported that there are over 100 books and articles

emphasizing stakeholder concepts. Stakeholder theory is not a new concept; however,

the application of this theory to education public policy is relatively new. Researchers in

education long have been interested in the impacts of policy on student outcomes, teacher

and school variables, and a host of other related stakeholder theory topics. While many

scholars define the concept a bit differently, they have a similar central focus;

organizations “should heed the needs, interests, and influence of those affected by their

policies” (Frederick, 1992, p. 5). Carroll (1996) shared the most typical definition of

stakeholder theory: “any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the actions,

decisions, policies, practices, or goals of the organization” (p. 74). Since students,

parents, teachers, instructional leaders, district administrators, school board members,

state department officials, legislators, and the United States Department of Education are

affected by the actions, decisions, and practices of educational institutions, these

stakeholders have been appropriately defined. Buchholz & Rosenthal (2004) support this

definition by stating that “a stakeholder is an individual or group that has some kind of

stake in what the organization does and may also affect the organization in some

fashion” (p. 144). However, balancing stakeholder interests is arguably the most critical

principle within stakeholder theory. Therefore it was crucial to identify the interests of the

multiple stakeholders from the rural school district in this study in order to appropriately

anticipate the implications of new educational policy.

11

It is appropriate for organizations to assess, weigh, and address the competing

claims of various stakeholders in order to balance stakeholder interests. “The desire to

balance stakeholder interests is the driving force behind such fundamental stakeholder

strategies as keeping score, prioritizing, and conducting constructive

negotiation” (Reynolds et al., 2006, p. 286). Most of the balancing process occurs at two

levels, the individual and the administrative. In order for a school to balance this process

successfully, the students, teachers, and parents should be involved with the decisions and

implementation of policies from the administrative level. In the end, these balancing acts

include actions which resolve stakeholder conflicts.

Stakeholder theory offers a starting point for understanding the multiple

perspectives in an enterprise. In education, stakeholder theory extends to include policy

implementation. Firestone and Fairman (1998) found that districts developed three main

policy implementation approaches: fragmented (little leadership for change, little interest

in state mandates), communicating (efforts made to coordinate instruction and support

higher-order thinking, but still little interest in the state test), and coordinated (deliberate

effort to raise test scores, district-run instructional activities, formal use of data). Spillane,

Thompson, Lubienski, Jita, and Reimann (1995), and Spillane (1996, 1997, 1998) found

that responses to state policy not only varied across districts, but also within districts. In

addition to the findings on variation, Spillane et al. (1995) produced evidence of districts

as more than simply recipients or implementers of state policy. Some districts did not

adopt policies whole-heartedly. Districts often focused on topic coverage rather than

12

changing teachers’ ideas about content and instruction.

Spillane (1997, 1998, 2000) investigated important cognitive aspects of district

practices. For example, districts intentionally ignored, revised, and deviated from state

policy by interpreting and often misconstruing the policy message or content (Spillane,

2000). Spillane (1996) concluded that districts impact policy implementation in three

ways: (a) their instructional policy making has the potential to undermine state policy

makers’ efforts to streamline instructional guidance (e.g., they shape the opportunities

practitioners have to learn about instruction and state policy), (b) their policies influence

state policy makers’ efforts to transmit messages for instructional change to practitioners,

and (c) they influence state efforts to increase coherence of messages.

Several other studies revealed similar patterns of districts adapting state policy

and actively constructing their own policy implementation environments. Kirp and

Driver’s (1995) suburban district defied and bent some state policies (e.g., Title I,

decentralization) when such policies were perceived as misguided, and adapted others

(e.g., magnet schools) when they reinforced existing goals and ongoing district efforts.

Similarly, Goertz and Massell (1998) found considerable adaptation to state

accountability systems across the 14 districts they studied. Some districts extended state

policy beyond the initial expectations - raising standards higher, creating more

performance incentives, and expanding testing. Chrispeels (1997) identified ways in

which districts within one California county created policies of their own in response to

shifts in the direction of state curriculum and assessment policies. Chrispeels (1997)

13

found that many districts continued to implement alternative assessments in the spirit of

the failed state policy because such approaches to assessment made sense to local

educators.

The studies by Fuhrman and Elmore (1990) corroborated earlier findings from the

Consortium for Policy Research in Education that showed that state policy making often

spurred additional policy making at the district level. The local districts anticipated new

policy initiatives and used them to their advantage. Local leaders used state and federal

mandates as leverage to accomplish what they wished by rationalizing their personal

agenda through the policy. Many leaders also knew how to ignore or circumvent

regulations which troubled them.

Not all school leaders approached policy implementation in this manner (Fuhrman

& Elmore, 1990). Brazer and Peters (2007) found the critical need to identify when, why,

and how the stakeholders react during the policy interpretation and implementation

decision-making process. Brazer and Peters (2007) moved beyond analyzing the

consequences of the final decision and analyzed how the district came to this decision.

Brazer and Peters (2007) took the initiative to examine closely how a single school

district responded to federal and state accountability pressures by analyzing the decision-

making process of various stakeholders.

Brazer and Peters (2007) demonstrated “how instructionally oriented decisions

develop in a context of external accountability and uncertainty about how to improve

achievement” (p. 1). They explained instructional leadership choices regarding how the

14

school system decided to change, the degree to which specific decisions were made

collaboratively, and how the district communicated this change decision to individual

schools (Brazer & Peters, 2007). A critical element identified by Brazer and Peters

(2007) included the conceptual framework which encompassed multiple stakeholder

decision making to the specific school district centralized in their study.

Brazer and Peters’ (2007) research moved beyond Englert et al.’s (2007) research,

which simply analyzed policies and practices, not the decision-making process. Brazer

and Peters demonstrated how decisions evolve. They collected data as the decisions were

made or shortly thereafter as the district went through the change process. Brazer and

Peters found that formal leadership positions had the greatest influence on decision

making. Brazer and Peters (2007) concluded that “leading school districts and schools

through change is a tricky balancing act in which superintendents, principals, and teacher

leaders find themselves compromising among accountability to outside authorities,

improved student achievement, involvement of multiple stakeholders in decision-making

processes, and the need to implement change quickly and effectively” (p. 13).

I refer back to Freeman’s definition of stakeholder theory; a “stakeholder in an

organization is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement

of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). I take affect to mean influence,

and in this regard leadership is implied, since elsewhere in the literature leadership has

been understood as an influence process (Northouse, 2007). With this in mind,

stakeholder theory literature most often has focused on businesses and has yet to consider

15

the individual policy implementer within a group of stakeholders. Many organizational

decisions ultimately are made by individuals who try to balance the needs of various

affected stakeholders. Scholars (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972)

often explain leadership and decision making before and after various stakeholders are

involved, but omit what happened during the decision-making process (Brazer & Peters,

2007). There is a need for leaders to stop and analyze the effects of their decisions in the

moment of transition rather than after the change. My study demonstrates why it is

critical for individual policy implementers as members of a stakeholder group to analyze

the effects of his or her decisions before making a decision regarding educational policy

change. Stakeholder theory provides no formal process or means of balancing

stakeholder interests, yet it does serve as a policy implementation model for organizations

and in this case, educational institutions. Instructional leaders are given much power in

the stakeholder model as it is these instructional leaders who have the ultimate

responsibility to determine which stakeholder interests receive attention. Stakeholder

management requires leaders to consider the interests and concerns of various groups and

individuals in arriving at a decision in order to bring the highest level of satisfaction to

those parties involved. My study comes at a critical time; teachers, principals, and

administrators are at a crossroad to connect special education practices with general

education policy.

Historical Context of Stakeholder Theory & Ethical Considerations

“We do not formulate public policy in a moral vacuum” (Harrington, 1996, p. 373).

16

Since it is human nature to strive for the good, ethics and politics often are intertwined.

Wijnberg (2000) proposed that “by viewing the ethical and political situation of a [leader]

in an [institution] along the same lines as Aristotle viewed the situation of a citizen in a

polis, a number of important problems in stakeholder theory can be dealt with more

successfully than before” (p. 329). During the decision-making process, it is critical that

the views of multiple stakeholders are revisited often. District leaders are given almost

unlimited power in the stakeholder model, as it is district leaders who have the ultimate

responsibility to decide what stakeholder interests receive attention. Ethics can be

included in the analysis of public policy.

Immanuel Kant (1785/1959) believed that individuals had equal moral worth since

they independently could decide right from wrong and act accordingly. Following Kant,

we should respect people as “ends in themselves” rather than as means to an end.

Freeman (1984) supported Kant in that “each stakeholder group has a right not to be

treated as a means to some end, and therefore must participate in determining the future

direction of the firm in which they have a stake” (p. xx). Therefore, since interest groups

are identified as stakeholders, and the stakeholders have rights, then educational

institutions have duties to stakeholders. John Rawls (1971) suggested that we identify the

correct morals by engaging in an investigation to identify the basic facts of the world, yet

we are ignorant of our place in this world. In conclusion, rational people would devise a

moral theory that maximizes fairness of opportunity for all and an equal distribution of

societal resources (Freeman, 1984). District leaders have the good fortune to be in a

17

position of power, yet need to act as moral agents (Freeman 1993). Leaders acknowledge

the validity of various stakeholder interests and attempt to respond to these interests

within a moral and supportive framework (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). It is important to

value all stakeholders as opposed to just those who are educated.

Decision-Making Processes for Educational Policy Change

An educational decision-making model requires accounting for the influence of

advisors to educational leaders who have a stake in the decision being considered (Brazer

& Keller, 2006). Since these stakeholders have different goals, objectives, and interests,

it is critical to remember that theirs may not align with those of the leader and other

stakeholders (Allison & Zelikow, 1999). Based upon the level of influence of various

stakeholders, their opinions will hold varying degrees of influence on decisions made

throughout the change process (Brazer & Keller, 2006).

In simpler terms, educational decision making places the school board in charge of

overall policy with the superintendent acting as their agent (Brazer & Keller, 2006). Thus

it is assumed by the government that the superintendent has informed school-based

instructional leaders of the system’s goals and the necessary steps to achieve these goals

(Brazer & Keller, 2006). Consequently, principals decide how to proceed with building

participation by mandating their teachers’ allegiance to the policy (Brazer & Keller,

2006). In the end, it is the individual teacher who works with the students, either

effectively or ineffectively. It is the responsibility of the teacher to ensure success for the

student. As a result of this thinking, community stakeholders view the teacher as the

18

most accountable.

The school board has multiple stakeholders including, but not limited to: the

superintendent; parents and community members; national, state, and local governments;

and students. Each of these stakeholders is characterized by a certain degree of power,

legitimacy, and urgency in regard to a specific issue under consideration (Winn & Keller,

2001). Power refers to position, relationships, and/or access to resources (Pfeffer, 1982).

Legitimacy includes the stakeholders’ rights to involve themselves in a particular decision

by virtue of the position within the district (Brazer & Keller, 2006). “Urgency conveyed

the time pressure stakeholders perceive in regard to making a decision” (Brazer & Keller,

2006, p. 6).

Stakeholders use their objectives to influence a policy (Brazer & Keller, 2006).

Different objectives have different levels of importance, different hierarchies (Winn &

Keller, 2001). These hierarchies change based upon the targeted stakeholders and their

varying degrees of power, legitimacy, and urgency; therefore, how a district decides to

proceed depends upon the objective hierarchies within stakeholder groups (Brazer &

Keller, 2006).

Leaders’ knowledge impacts how stakeholders transition through a change in policy

(Bryant, 2004). “A fundamental assumption is that school leaders and other major

implementers either support or accept the policy” (Fowler, 2001, p. 277). Fullan (1991)

observes:

Educational change is a process of coming to grips with the multiple realities of people, who are the main participants in implementing change.

19

The leader who presupposes what the change should be and acts in ways that preclude others’ realities is bound to fail (p. 95).

Leaders consider what they believe would be the most appropriate way to implement the

new policy by reviewing the group’s characteristics and the situation’s circumstances.

“Leaders must remember that teachers stand between what policy makers intend, what

administrators direct, what students and parents expect, and what occurs in

classrooms” (Brazer & Keller, 2006, p. 11).

Leadership for Policy Change

The difficulty of implementing new policies in schools is studied and debated

widely. A common thread throughout the discourse on change and policy implementation

surrounds the role of the instructional leaders (Louis, 1999). “Change cannot be

managed - it can be understood and led, but it cannot be controlled” (Fullan, 2007, p.

171). Change management takes courage precisely because it can be a high-risk

undertaking both for organizations and the careers of the decision makers involved (Ahn,

Adamson, & Dornbusch, 2004). Every change initiative is likely to face internal

resistance (Schaeffer, 2002). However, once the policy implementation has been

identified clearly as the need for change, there is a shift from transactional leadership to

transformational leadership styles (Ahn, et. al, 2004). The shift in leadership styles

implies that reflective leaders know which situations warrant a specific leadership style.

In order to initiate a change in policy, transactional leadership styles are effective as the

leader delivers the policy mandates. In order to implement the policy change, the leaders

need to empower his or her followers. The leader needs to employ more transformational

20

leadership actions.

Leadership is coping with change (Kotter, 2001). Given today’s ever-shifting

educational demands, change is more and more necessary to survive and compete while

providing the most effective educational experiences for children. Bryant (2003)

identified that highly effective leaders use intuition and creative insight to solve problems

as they transition their institution through a period of change. In order to lead an

institution through change constructively, a leader begins by setting a direction through

vision development at the same time that strategies for implementing the policy also are

designed (Kotter, 2001). Transformational leaders use motivation to encourage

innovation, where transactional leaders overemphasize the details and goals of the policy

(Bryant, 2003; Kotter, 2001). Generally, this interchange between two leadership styles

promotes higher levels of knowledge creation; in return, the institution benefits from

higher levels of performance (Bryant, 2003). Consequently, differences in knowledge

processes within the institution require emphasis from different styles of leadership.

Leaders need to empower all stakeholders so no group feels powerless during the

unsettling period of change.

According to Tucker (2004), transformational leaders focus on change, progress,

and development. They emphasize the need for understanding change as a process in

order to engage in a successful series of transitions during the period of change.

Burns’ (1978) landmark work established a strong foundation which supported Tucker’s

beliefs. According to Burns (1978), transformational leaders provided change and

21

movement in an organization by providing a vision for change. In order to be effective,

transformational leaders must establish clear goals and have the capacity to stand back

from everyday activities and see the processes of change over the long term. Covey

(1991) continued by describing transformational leaders as those who influence human

qualities as they are preoccupied with purposes, values, morals, and ethics.

Transformational leaders align internal structures to reinforce these values and goals as

they seek to release human potential by leading in new directions. Effective leaders

impact the psychology and behavior of their followers during the process of change

(Satir, 1988). Consequently, Tucker and Russell (2004) identified three areas in which

transformational leaders influence organizational culture: “(a) the internal mindset of

people within the organization, (b) the culture among the people of the organization, and

(c) the culture beyond the people of the organization” (p. 106). Based upon this three-

prong approach, multiple stakeholders are influenced when a transformational leader

guides the educational institutions through the policy change. In the end, this

transformational energy will lead the stakeholders to greater effectiveness as they strive

to reach personal as well as institutional goals (Flanagan & Thompson, 1993).

Leadership literature focused extensively on transformational leadership in

processes of change (Leithwood & Duke, 1999). This literature addressed the difficulties

of change in terms of deep structures (Tye, 2000), near insolvable sets or organizational

dilemmas (Ogawa, Crowson, & Goldring, 1999), and resistant cultures (Sarason, 1977).

Missing from the discourse, however, is an acknowledgement and understanding that

22

change and policy implementation implies and often requires a transition. In most cases

of school improvement, school districts need to transition from one modus operandi to

another. Change involves the unmaking of policy and procedures in order to remake them

anew. Bass (1999) concluded that organizations that are ready, able, and willing to

change are more transformational than transactional in terms of leadership styles.

Transactional leaders cater to the self-interests of their stakeholders by rewarding

desired behaviors (Rowan, 1996). A transactional leader addresses the material needs of

the employee; the transformational leader focuses on the self-concept of the employee

and the employee’s self-worth (Bass, 2000). Schools strive to align educational interests

with relevant stakeholders by increasing the level of commitment of these stakeholders to

the institution’s goals. Transformative approaches originate with an organic worldview,

assume capacity to be a key to change, offer intrinsic incentives and rewards when

additional motivation is necessary, and use commitment strategies to ensure desirable

performance with a controlled orientation to change (Rowan, 1996).

“Transformational approaches to leadership emphasize emotions and values and

share in common the fundamental aim of fostering capacity development and higher

levels of personal commitment to organizational goals on the part of the leaders’

colleagues” (Leithwood, 2007, p. 192). Leithwood (2001) recommended that

transformational leadership practices may be distributed widely throughout the institution

so there is no need to view this as a “great man” orientation to leadership. Power is

shared by members of the institution by way of those who inspire, demonstrate

23

commitment, and share a collective mastery of skills to achieve the goals.

Effective leaders maintain an awareness of their followers’ needs and keep the goal

in sight. These leaders are flexible enough to maintain a balance between focusing on the

task as well as the relations with their followers. The leader develops a system of

determining when to use his or her own expertise or to call on his or her followers

(Heifetz, 1994). Heifetz (1994) supported this conclusion with the physician-patient

relationship example. “When it is a matter of technical knowledge about the patient’s

complaint, and the physician’s diagnosis and prescription are needed, the physician takes

the lead. When the problem is about treatment, the physician and patient should share in

the decision. When it’s a question of implementation, the patient needs to take charge” (p.

75).

According to Fullan (2007), it is necessary to define change as a process. Fullan

found that the goals of effective educational leaders are not to innovate the most, nor is it

enough to be the leader who has the best ideas. Resistance is necessary in order to make

change happen (2007). Stakeholders are more likely to learn something from people who

disagree with them than they are from people who agree. People resist for what they

view as good reasons; they may see alternatives that others never conceived (Satir, 1988).

It is necessary to re-culture, to transform the culture (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996).

Schon (1983) recommended that leaders use reflective practice from feedback in order to

transform their institutions.

As McAllaster (2004) identified, change is constant; it is essential to survival.

24

Change will coincide with transitions in organizational needs (Bass, 2000). Bass (2000)

proposed a strategy to pursue continuous change for continuous improvement, which

would require more transformational than transactional leadership. Institutions cannot

afford to take change lightly; rather, these educational organizations need to think

strategically about how to make change happen. Schein (1995) recommended that the

leadership in an organization must change with the development of the organization by

serving as the change agent, the creator of the culture, and the sustainer of the

organization.

Burns (1978) found that effective leaders appeal to the personal goals and values of

the institutions’ colleagues to elevate and transform the goals and values in a collective

interest. Elmore (2003) and Leithwood (2007) supported this approach by suggesting

that most large-scale educational reform efforts argue for systemic approaches to change

while at the same time advocating instructional forms of leadership. “One of the keys to

successful change is recognizing the different approaches that people and organizations

go through when dealing with the reality that things will be different” (McAllaster, 2004,

p. 318). Mintzberg, Ahlsrand, and Lampel (1998) also concluded that “the best way to

manage change is to allow for it to happen” (p. 324) . In other words “to be pulled by the

concerns out there rather than being pushed by the concepts in here” (p. 373). Pascale,

Millemann, and Gioja (2000) continued to support the findings of Mintzberg, et al., who

found that the biggest challenge is to disturb the institutions in a manner that

approximates the desired outcomes. Consequently, “successful organizations don’t go

25

with only like-minded innovators; they deliberately build in differences” (Fullan, 2007, p.

177). Reorganization often is necessary to make change happen in order to create a

culture for learning.

Portin and Shen (1998) identified principals as the key individuals to initiate change

as they problem solve and motivate. In order to provide the most effective leadership

possible, principals persuade the stakeholders that they are accountable, that a

transformational approach is appropriate to the task, and actively resist efforts to foster

the exclusive use of transactional practices. However, this takes a systematic approach.

Instructional leaders need to collect the data, focus on school improvement, and present

the case in a logical, problem-solving way to critical stakeholders, which may warrant an

entirely new level of leadership development. Fowler (2001) recommended that

education leaders play an active role in policy implementation by sharing their

professional knowledge and beliefs. The role of the school principal has become

increasingly complex and demanding (Daresh, Gantner, Dunlap, & Hviszdak, 2000).

This complexity led many to suggest that leadership development programs deal

with more than simply technical management competencies and include competencies

that take into account empowering and developing others, particularly when the principal

and his or her staff are engaged in carrying out school-wide reforms (Rosenblum, Louis,

& Rossmiller, 1994). Bryant (2003) recommended that further research is needed to

identify how external factors, such as policy mandates and stakeholders, affect the need

for transformational and transactional leaders to manage the transition as an institution

26

endures a period of change. “Successful change depends upon developing and

maintaining both the will and the capacity of the stakeholders” (Fowler, 2001, p. 270).

In order to provide students with a competitive edge in their education, Bryant

(2003) recommended that leaders use an organizational process to lead. The

organizational knowledge process recognizes faculty’s “need to be encouraged and

attended to in order to foster knowledge creation, sharing, and exploitation” (Bryant,

2003, p. 36). This process includes a balance of both transformational as well as

transactional attributes. The organizational process includes all of the knowledge that the

faculty and staff share, from instructional practices to school culture, community norms

as well as the dynamics of collegiality. Organizational knowledge does not change when

a new leader enters the institution. Rather, this knowledge is embedded within the

systems and relationships existing in the institution. Institutions learn new skills through

the process of integrating the new with the old. Consequently, high-achieving schools

sustain their status when there is a change in leadership.

Schools matter when it comes to improving student achievement. Leadership is

thought to be critical to innovation in schools (Spillane, 1998). Organizational structures,

leadership roles, and conditions of schools contribute to innovation (Newman &

Wehlage, 1995; Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Schools with shared visions and norms around

instruction, collaborative atmospheres, and a sense of collective responsibility for student

success provide the culture for teachers to improve their practice (Bryk & Driscoll, 1985;

Newman & Wehlage, 1995). Rosenholtz (1989) found that instructional leadership is

27

important to promote these conditions. Leadership is more than heavy-handed action at

the top. Its defining characteristics change according to the needs and vagaries of the

individual, the organization, and the world by thinking clearly about the roles warranted

at the time (Schaeffer, 2002).

When school districts undertake systemic reforms in aligning the curriculum with

instructional practices and assessments, much of the burden in carrying out these reforms

falls to the building-level instructional leaders. Ultimately, principals assume

responsibility for determining the nature and intensity of involvement by committing

resources for professional development, allocating resources to support the infusion of

technology, providing resources that support instruction (e.g. textbook purchases,

educational manipulatives), and aligning assessments, including state- and district-level

assessments. Instructional leaders elect to adopt what might be termed an “accountability

first” stance as opposed to a position encouraged by standards-based reform that

emphasizes the professional development of teachers, the enhancement of school

resources, and student achievement (Newman & Wehlage, 1995; Hallinger & Heck,

1996; Spillane, 1998).

Professional approaches to accountability imply an increased need for school

leaders to stay abreast of best professional practices and to assist staff in the identification

of professional standards for their work. School leaders set expectations and create

conditions for professional growth (Prestine, 1999). Leaders monitor the progress of staff

in regard to instructional decision making (Leithwood, 2001). In order for these

28

professional approaches to meet success, instructional leaders carefully plan and critically

interpret policies which allocate the resources for such professional development.

Survey data reviewed by Southworth (1998) confirmed these assumptions about

effective leadership for school improvement. Successful school improvement depends on

establishing and sustaining a culture of inquiry and reflection, a commitment to

collaborative planning and staff development, high levels of stakeholder involvement,

and effective coordination strategies (Southworth, 1998).

Principals often influence teachers’ enactment of policy by shaping access to policy

ideas, participating in the social process of interpretation and adaptation, and creating

substantively different conditions for teacher learning in schools. These actions are

influenced by principals’ understandings about similarities and differences between

general and special education instruction and teacher learning. District office

administrators historically have managed special education programming, staffing,

training, financing, testing, and facilities, but the burden of managing special education

policies and practices increasingly is placed on the shoulders of principals. Furthermore,

trends to shift decision making to schools leave principals and site-based committees

major responsibilities for special education. They manage intricacies ranging from

allocating classroom space, responding to parent concerns, and hiring and assigning

special education assistants, to ensuring that grab bars are installed in bathrooms.

Tyack and Cuban (1995) cautioned that systems must not ignore the possibility of

goal conflict, policy misunderstanding, and poor relations among administrators,

29

instructional leaders, and teachers. Ignorance often causes dysfunctionality of the policy

implementation. Consequently, it is more effective to use a stakeholder perspective in

regard to educational institution decision-making processes rather than a chain of

command approach (Brazer & Keller, 2006). Leadership is within the web of decisions

made by multiple stakeholders. Leaders use enough flexibility to implement different

strategies with different stakeholders as well as use different strategies with the same

stakeholders over a period of time (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Leaders prepare

organizations for change and help them cope as they struggle through it (Kotter, 2001).

Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership is a common term tossed around in today’s standards-

driven educational world with little regard to its origins. Often, instructional leadership

refers to administrators who focus on their students’ progress (Leithwood, 2007).

However, numerous books and studies described instructional leadership from Andrews

and Soder (1987) and Duke (1987). I referred to Hallinger’s (2003, 2000; and Hallinger

& Murphy, 1985) comprehensive research to provide the most practical definition of the

term. Hallinger included three categories of practices in his model: (a) defining the

school’s mission, (b) managing the instructional program, and (c) promoting a positive

school learning climate.

By defining the school’s mission, the instructional leader frames the goals of the

school and communicates these goals through print and actions. Instructional leaders

who manage the instructional program ensure that the school meets annual yearly

30

progress by supervising instruction, evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum to

ensure that state standards are met, and monitoring student progress. The instructional

leader promotes a positive school learning climate by protecting instructional time,

promoting professional development for all faculty and staff, maintaining accessibility to

all teachers, and providing incentives for teachers and for student learning.

Hallinger (2003) identified that principals who incorporate mission-building

activities use the most influential set of leadership practices. Hallinger (2003) concluded

that “relatively few studies find a relationship between the principal’s hands-on

supervision of classroom instruction, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement.

Where effects have been identified, it has generally been at the elementary school level

and could possibly be explained by the school size” (pp. 333-334).

Leadership Through Transitions During a Period of Policy Change

Until very recently, more attention has been paid to concepts of transformational

leadership than to leadership of a transition in educational administration and policy

analysis (Leithwood & Duke, 1999). A transformation is a change in structure, purpose,

goal(s), and behavior(s). A transition is the passage of an organization from one phase to

another. Transition is the exploration of the very early stages of change, when moving

from the known to the unknown and realizing that loss is critical for change.

Transformational leadership practices are a necessary, but not a sufficient part of an

effective school leader’s repertoire (Leithwood, 2001). Transitions have roots in the past,

with a need to move forward to a future state of affairs. Consequently, a key to transition

31

is bridging the old, a process of undoing, while simultaneously focusing on the

restructuring.

Most often a transition includes a delicate process of staying in place, yet moving

forward. Mitchell (1990) referred to this as a combined process of “loss, belonging, and

becoming.” From a leadership perspective, this process suggested that leaders balance

such seemingly opposing values as logic and artistry (Deal & Peterson, 1994).

Transitions also cross boundaries (Sarason & Lorentz, 1998; Cordeiro, 1996). These

abstract boundaries weave the fabric of an organization; special education identification

processes are redefined by crossing the general education boundaries between testing and

instruction in order to identify how students respond to interventions.

The notion of transition as a type of change is more developed than a theory of

leadership to fit the circumstances of the transition. From a leadership-of-transition

perspective, Sarason and Lorentz (1998) described the work of boundary-crossing as a

necessary “period of messiness and disorder” (p. 28 - 29). “Organizational messiness is a

condition one expects to experience before new order can emerge” (Sarason & Lorentz,

1998, p. 29). Extraordinary leadership is necessary during this messiness.

In order to survive the phase of messiness, instructional leaders clarify the sense of

organizational direction; that is, they articulate where all of this change presumably is

headed. New policy and its implementation offer direction through expectations and

accountability. School-level conditions and instructional leadership are key issues in

efforts to change instruction and improve student achievement (Spillane, Halverson, &

32

Diamond, 2004). Leadership practices emerged in the execution of leadership tasks in

and through the interaction of leaders, followers, and situations (Spillane, Halverson, &

Diamond, 2004).

As Bass (2000) concluded

Since its inception, research has demonstrated the utility of transformational leadership for increasing organizational satisfaction, commitment, and effectiveness, as well as the increased understanding of the dynamics of transformational leadership. There is a good fit of transformational leadership with the needs of leadership in a learning organization. But leadership can also be transactional. The good leaders of the learning organization will be both but more transformational and less transactional. (p. 21)

Consequently, future educational leaders will be transformational as they serve in a

democratic role with their stakeholders. They will identify themselves as change agents

and be ready to accept responsibility to transition their institutions through this period of

change. They will convert policies and problems “into challenges and

opportunities” (Bass, 2000, p. 38).

Effective leaders create, share, and exploit knowledge (Bryant, 2003). Mumford,

Whetzel, and Reiter-Palmon (1997) recommended that in order to create knowledge,

leaders provide the context in which faculty create knowledge to influence new levels of

creativity. In order to share knowledge, leaders create a climate that is receptive to new

ideas (Bryant, 2003). Boisot (1998) described the process of converting creative ideas

into valuable products and services as exploiting knowledge.

Given what I know about professional and organizational learning, the

implementation of educational policies, and the process of change in schools, it is easy to

33

imagine ways in which the reformers’ intentions might not be realized. It is equally easy

to dismiss a complex and promising policy idea before one fully appreciates its potential.

To grasp what such reforms may accomplish involves an ongoing dialogue between

leaders where powerful ideas about policy-to-practice connections and emerging

evidence from instances of systemic reform can come into view.

Government Influence on Educational Trends

Congress officially began to influence special education as early as 1967, when it

established the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped to fund special techniques and

programs for students with disabilities. These programs were not accessible to all

handicapped children and were separate from general education classrooms. In 1973, the

Rehabilitation Act protected qualified individuals from discrimination based on their

disability, giving all students identified as disabled equal rights. Two years later, in 1975,

President Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) to

guarantee that students with disabilities have a right to receive a free, appropriate

education (FAPE). [This law’s purpose, to allow states and school districts to decide

where and how to educate disabled students, didn’t change, although the name did change

in 1990 to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.] In 1997, IDEA was

reauthorized to include new accountability and assessment requirements. President Bush

supported this accountability and assessment process when he reauthorized the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) in 2002. Finally, in 2004, IDEA was reauthorized again as the Individuals with

34

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in an attempt to align more closely

IDEA and NCLB. This historical trend of IDEIA as a civil rights law has led to an

overemphasis on the process of providing educational services and an underemphasis on

evaluating the outcomes of these services. Consequently, these processes have

contributed to the bureaucracy that weighs down the original law’s spirit and hinders

implementation. Now, IDEIA’s focus has shifted from “access” to “accountability” to

ensure that children’s needs are met in the most efficient, effective manner (Sack-Min,

2007).

The shift from access to accountability took much time and many advocates.

Over the past 30 years, research in the dynamic field of reading has had the most

dramatic impact on general and special education trends and legislation. A prevalent

view in the 1980s was that too many children were referred for testing and possible

special education placement (Fuchs, et al., 2003). This apparent increase in referrals was

interpreted as a sign of many teachers’ inability or unwillingness to accommodate

academic diversity in their classrooms (Reynolds, et al., 1987). When Congress

developed PL 94-142, advocates argued that children with learning disabilities

represented a unique group and teachers were not ready instructionally for these children.

These findings were supported as far back as the 1890s, when Morgan and Hinshelwood

described average children displaying an inability to master academic concepts (Hallahan

& Mercer, 2001). Later, Samuel Orton, Ph.D., confirmed this finding in the 1920s

(Hallahan & Mercer, 2001). Then in 1975, Rutter and Yule measured the IQ in reading

35

performance of all 9- and 14-year-olds on the Isle of Wight (Rutter & Yule, 1975). In

order to determine over achievement and under achievement, Rutter and Yule regressed

the children’s IQ scores on their reading scores to produce a distribution of IQ-predicted

reading performance. Their results indicated a hump at the lower end of the distribution,

indicating that extreme degrees of reading under achievement occur at a greater rate than

is expected (Rutter & Yule, 1975). This led Rutter and Yule (1975) to suggest that the

group of underachievers was distinctly different from the group of low achievers. These

findings appear to confirm unexpected and specific learning failure as valid identifiers of

students with LD (Fletcher, 1995). In 1977, the United States Department of Education

(DOE) used Rutter and Yule’s research to suggest a severe discrepancy between

performance on intelligence and achievement tests as the primary marker of learning

disabilities. Consequently most state departments of education adopted the severe

discrepancy idea; however, states were able to define this discrepancy in their own ways.

Before reauthorizing IDEA in 2004, the 108th Congress raised concerns about

school districts that inappropriately identified students with a disability. The

inconsistencies between the states’ definitions of IQ achievement discrepancy in varying

prevalence rates contributed to the widespread view that an LD designation is arbitrary

(Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Most recently, Fuchs (2003) suggests that

young at-risk readers perform similarly on many reading-related cognitive tasks and

demonstrate phonological processing deficits, which are correctable with appropriate

instruction. Stanovich (1999) concluded that “it is rare for the advocates of discrepancy-

36

based definitions to articulate the theory of social justice that dictates that society has a

special obligation to bring up the achievement of individuals whose achievements fall

short of their IQs, rather than simply to bring up the skills of those with low skills” (p.

353). Criticism of the IQ discrepancy model does not end here. Since students must

have a history of poor performance before their achievement scales are sufficiently below

their IQ scores, it’s often cited as the “wait to ” model. In another longitudinal study,

researchers found that children as young as six with low reading achievement never catch

up with their stronger reading peers (Shaywitz S. E., Fletcher, Holahan, Schneider,

Marchione, Stuebing, Francis, Pugh, & Shaywitz, B. A., 1999). It didn’t make much

difference whether the struggling readers were identified formally as learning disabled or

not (Walser, 2007), the struggling readers did not catch up to their peers. According to

Fuchs et al. (2003), this label reflects poor teaching rather than a disability.

According to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), the number of students

with learning disabilities has increased 150 percent since 1975 to more than 6.7 million

students, which represents more than half of all students with disabilities (Council for

Exceptional Children, 2006). This is approximately 5 percent of the school-age

population (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Legislators, educators, and others question whether

the way we identify students with disabilities is valid. There are several possible

explanations for the increase in identification of LD. These include “recognition of the

significant academic and social problems realized by individuals with LD, greater social

acceptance of LD over other categories of special education, and increasing needs for

37

literacy at home and work” (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p. 137). IDEIA examines the IQ

achievement discrepancy model which identifies students with learning disabilities by

showing an unexpected gap between the students’ potential and achievement, and

replaces this identification methodology with a Response to Intervention (RtI)

methodology. In RtI, students who do not respond to intensive intervention would be

identified as disabled. RtI encourages appropriate use of evidence-based instruction

across tiers. In principle, RtI decreases the number of children incorrectly identified as

disabled (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

RtI Implications

Experts postulate that if those children with a disability had been taught more

appropriately and received early intervention services within their general education

classrooms, many would not have been labeled as learning disabled (Fuchs & Fuchs,

2006; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Harry & Klingner, 2007; Vaughn & Fuchs,

2003). IDEIA adds critical steps to safeguard against some of misdiagnosis. The

International Reading Association (IRA), Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), the

National Association of School Principals (NASP), and the National Education

Association (NEA) organizations, whose large membership dues influence legislators,

have collaborated to recommend that RtI include the following conditions and activities:

(a) high quality and instructional and behavioral supports are in place; (b) scientific,

research-based intervention is delivered by qualified personnel with expertise in the

intervention used and in the areas of student difficulty; (c) student progress is monitored

38

continuously; (d) data-based documentation is maintained on each student; (e) systematic

documentation verifies that interventions are implemented with fidelity, integrity, and the

intended intensity; (f) decisions are made by a collaborative team of school staff who

review response data and other information required to ensure a comprehensive

evaluation; (g) interventions address the individual student’s difficulties at the needed

level of intensity and with the support of needed resources and personnel; (h) a written

document describing the specific components and structure of the process to be used is

available to parents and professionals; and (i) parent notification and involvement are

documented (The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association et al., 2006, pp. 1-2).

These organizations conclude by asking the Department of Education to consider

the following recommendations: “clarification of the RtI program elements; techniques,

professional development tools, professional involvement, when children qualify for the

RtI process, how and when progress will be determined, and how students will be

assessed non-responsive to the interventions” (International Reading Association, 2005,

p. 1).

In their most clever hour, the Department of Education (DOE) included the RtI

concept in both of the most recent education legislations: IDEIA and NCLB. The DOE

believes when general and special educators collaborate, children’s learning will

accelerate. They also believe that one identification method will not work for all

children; therefore, schools are permitted to continue to use the discrepancy method, the

RtI method, or a combination of both methods (Mellard, 2007). Concurrently, funds

39

overlap under both umbrellas, making financial accessibility much more realistic for local

education agencies (LEA) (Walser, 2007). Accordingly, schools and parents are excited

about these legislative implications since emphasis shifted from special education in

isolation to emphasis on high-quality, research-based instruction (Walser, 2007).

However, Fuchs (as cited in Walser, 2007) cautions that there is not yet data to show that

shifting these federal funds from special education to general education will reduce the

number of children in special education.

The proposed RtI model, which originated in the 1982 National Research Council

study (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, as cited in Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), proposed that

the validity of a special education classification be judged according to three criteria.

“The first criterion is whether the quality of the general education program is such that

adequate learning might be expected. The second consideration is whether the special

education program is of sufficient value to improve student outcomes and thereby justify

the classification. The third criterion is whether the assessment process used for

identification is accurate and meaningful” (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p. 138).

Using the RtI identification procedures, low achievers would be identified as

quickly as possible and provided intensive research-based instruction from quality

professionals. Even though this new identification process seemed like the best

approach, the CEC raised five areas of concern regarding RtI. First, RtI can present its

own version of wait to fail. There is no guarantee that a student who responds to

interventions will continue to progress when he or she returns to the general education

40

classroom. Second, the implementation of RtI can vary from school to school and

classroom to classroom. Specifically, how extensive must non-responsiveness be before

a student is identified as disabled? Third, intervention strategy selection can be

problematic and inconsistent due to the teachers’ instructional delivery, materials used,

and the context of the instruction. Fourth, teachers will be required to provide assistance

to underachieving students immediately, to record this data, and to test their hypotheses;

most professionals are not trained to utilize these interventions. Finally, there seems to be

two methodologies to implement RtI: problem solving and standard protocol. Not only

does determining which process to implement cause flux in the identification process, but

also how each of these methods is implemented varies from school to school.

Problem-solving interventions give special educators the professional decision-

making responsibility to individualize interventions according to the student's needs;

however, this individualization may compromise the program’s integrity. When special

educators use standard protocol interventions, the teacher loses the ability to individualize

the instruction. Many educators claimed RtI is untested and too hard to embrace at the

national level (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). As Klingner and Edwards (2006)

concluded, when children have not had sufficient opportunity to learn, the determination

cannot be made that they have a learning disability. Conclusively, RtI can “promote

effective practices and reduce the gap between identification and intervention” (Vaughn

& Fuchs, 2003, p. 139).

41

RtI within NCLB and IDEIA

Since lawmakers passed NCLB three years before the reauthorization of IDEA,

there has not been complete congruence between the general educator’s role and the

special educator’s role (Council for Exceptional Children, 2006). Consequently, there is

much confusion between various stakeholders, individual goal setting, professional

development, and funding. Together, NCLB and IDEIA overlap confusingly as they try

to “standardize a complex situation,” said Ruth Schallert, a parent-teacher advocate from

North Carolina (Josey, 2007, p.1). One of the most prominent areas of discussion is the

professional training and development of teachers. Betty Anne Chandler, director of

special education in Guilford County, North Carolina, acknowledged that there are

incompetent teachers, but said that more often than not, it is not the teacher’s own

capacity but a lack of training that results in low student achievement (Josey, 2007).

Nancy Zuckerbrod (2007) agreed, “the dilemma is how to fix the problem without

abandoning the kids” (p. 1). Michael Petrilli, an education legal expert, debated that it is

more than just providing training to teachers in the field (as cited in Zuckerbrod, 2007).

“I think the law was not well-designed for (all children). [Special education and general

education] students are not able to meet the same standards at the same

pace” (Zuckerbrod, 2007, p. 1).

While both general and special educators can embrace the notion that all children

can learn, teachers’ instructional delivery differs as much as their preparation institutions

(Gerber, 2003a). Yet teachers deserve specialized professional development in order to

42

implement RtI. Most teachers who experience RtI give it high ratings since kids are

caught early because screenings take place in the first few weeks of school and no one

falls through the cracks (Council for Exceptional Children, 2007b). General and special

educators also benefit from the ongoing collaboration. There seems to be more resistance

from general educators in this collaborative model than from special educators, another

reason why it is so critical to ensure that the upcoming NCLB reauthorization aligns with

IDEIA. Brandi Meade (a general educator from Idaho) and Anna Bernard (a special

educator from Oregon) concur that RtI is what’s best for kids (Council for Exceptional

Children, 2007b). Researchers continue to find that RtI promises to treat at-risk children

before they fall behind their peers (Samuels, 2006a).

Joanne Phillips, Arizona’s director of special education, believes we need “more

uniform application” of educators responding to student needs (Samuels, 2006b, p. 1).

Therefore, it is critical to include RtI within the NCLB reauthorization. According to Bill

East, executive director of Virginia’s special educator’s group, there appears to be no

Democratic or Republican approach to special education (Samuels, 2006b). At the

November 2006 National Association of State Directors of Special Education meeting,

Alexa Posny, director of the federal Education Department’s office of special education

policy, shared that if special education and general education policy were bound together,

greater implementation and greater student achievement would occur (Samuels, 2006b).

Administrators, legislators, teacher preparation institutions and professional organizations

must support this need by providing the appropriate capital and human resources

43

(Mellard, 2007; Walser, 2007). Researchers must facilitate more action research and

publish the results in a more expedited fashion in order to increase teachers’ awareness

(Gerber, 2003a). Teachers must participate in these investigations in order to learn new

strategies and provide the field application that currently is missing from many

intervention effectiveness studies (Gerber).

Supporters maintained that the federally approved RtI method allows students

with learning disabilities to be identified and supported earlier in their academic careers,

but further investigation is warranted to determine how long it takes to recognize a

disability using RtI (Fergus, 2007). Consequently, there will be a shift in attitude by

focusing on the problems within the instruction rather than the child as the problem

(Walser, 2007). Parents can be reassured by this change because education institutions

will be better equipped to determine if their child’s lack of progress is in fact due to a

mismatch in instruction, or if it’s a result of their child’s cognitive abilities (Mellard,

2007). Parents will not lose the right to request a comprehensive evaluation if they are

concerned that the progress monitoring is not showing adequate growth.

Harry and Klingner (2007), special education researchers, argued “ambiguity and

subjectivity contribute to the disproportionate placement of minorities in special

education” (p. 16). “Students shouldn’t need a false disability label to receive appropriate

support. They also shouldn’t acquire that label because they had inappropriate or

inadequate opportunities to learn. And they shouldn’t end up in programs that don’t offer

the truly specialized instruction they need” (Harry & Klingner, 2007, p. 18). Harry and

44

Klingner concurred with the Texan advocates that we can devote resources to assessing

students’ exact instructional needs rather than to whether or not the students “have” a

disability. According to Kay Neas, parents and teachers in Missouri also believe that our

education system needs to do a better job meeting students’ instructional needs (as cited

in Zuckerbrod, 2007).

Experts argued that the long-term impact of RtI ranged from positive to negative

(Council for Exceptional Children, 2007b). Optimistically speaking, RtI could strengthen

special education by returning it to its historic role; special educators would provide

small groups of students with very specialized instruction. According to Douglas Fuchs,

RtI could eliminate learning disabilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2007b). This

would result in a domino effect to eliminate research on learning disabilities, which in

turn would eliminate new information on the best way to educate at-risk students.

Which way RtI goes depends largely on who accepts responsibility for RtI: general,

special, or all educators. Mellard (2007) argued that RtI could be the educational

transformation of the century as staffs shift roles and responsibilities to ensure

instructional matches for all students. Transformations are never easy and usually come

with many questions: how many interventions should be tried before a child is considered

unresponsive? How long should an intervention be implemented? How effective is the

intervention? What are the implications for the class / group size? How well has the

teacher been trained in the intervention strategy? What precautions are in place to ensure

fidelity of intervention implementation?

45

Implications of Policy Initiatives

Policy targets and policy instruments connect through the manner in which a policy

influences classroom practice. Each exerts a certain influence on the other (Cohen &

Ball, 1990). This reciprocal process is contingent upon many factors. The following

aspects of influence pertain to the process of policy on practice:

1. Influencing the environment of ideas about literacy, pedagogy, and learners.

Here, policy can introduce, popularize, and validate ideas that shape professional

conversations, public perceptions of schooling and teachers’ work, and the attention

paid by teachers and others to particular facets of literacy teaching.

2. Influencing coalitions of actors who press for or resist improvement in practice.

Here, policy can legitimize and empower new configurations of players at one level

or another, including coalitions of teachers whose philosophies and approaches are

compatible with the direction of policy.

3. Influencing the environment of requirements which shape and constrain practice.

Here, policy can add to or subtract from the total array of requirements and also

may alter the relationship among them (e.g., by aligning requirements). Of

particular relevance to teachers are requirements related to what is taught, how it

can be taught, and how it is assessed.

4. Influencing the forms and availability of support for instruction and instructional

experimentation. Here, policy can allocate resources, support the creation of

appropriate materials and equipment (especially relevant to teaching that

46

emphasizes hands-on experience), or secure these items for teachers. Policy also

create professional development opportunities alongside other forms of technical

assistance or more indirect help through various kinds of local support

arrangements.

5. Influencing the supply and quality of teachers. Here, policy can affect the kinds

of people who teach literacy through teacher education, incentives, or certification

(Knapp, 1997, p. 234).

These areas begin to connect the ideas, stakeholders, political pressures, resources

and constraints which directly impact classroom practice. Since not all policy makers are

aware of these areas, some policies often are designed to counter-balance classroom

practice, such as scientifically-based literacy intervention. Literacy interventions rarely

are based on pure scientific research (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). There are few professionals

who will conduct an experimental study within a learning environment. No child should

be denied effective instruction. Intervention research is based upon best practice

strategies. Consequently, the nature of these “purposeful courses of action” can be

revisited when designing policy in order to reduce the lack of awareness among

stakeholders and policy makers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)

As instructional leaders are given an order to make a change, they must make

critical decisions that affect multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders can embrace the

change, pick and choose aspects of the change that they favor, or ignore the message that

change must happen. It is critical to RtI implementation to consider how these

47

instructional leaders transition from the strategic change decision into implementation

(Brazer & Peters, 2007).

In response to the current education reform agenda, school districts are encouraged

to develop practices to address the diverse learning needs of all students (Bredeson &

Kose, 2007). According to Conzemius and O’Neill (2002), sharing responsibility for

student learning occurs among individuals, teams, schools, and school districts when a

process for continuous support is created. Cognizant school improvement initiatives

require decisions to be made and change to happen at all levels, from the superintendent’s

office down through the classroom where the instructional change take place.

Implementing an RtI process provides school teams with a systematic approach to

address student learning. The RtI process includes the following stages: (a) identify and

validate a student’s problem; (b) develop an appropriate intervention; (c) implement and

monitor the intervention; and (d) evaluate if the plan remains or needs to be adjusted

(Fuchs et al., 2003; Marston et al., 2003). This systematic repetition of the problem-

solving process flows across three distinct phases and includes the problem-solving

model (Marston, 2002). The phases to address a student’s area of concern include: (a)

teachers trained at the classroom level, (b) problem-solving team assistance, and (c)

referral for special education and placement (Marston, 2002). Implementation of the RtI

process can improve the effectiveness of instruction for struggling students and provide

school teams with evidence-based procedures that measure a student’s progress and

possible need for special services (Canter, 2004; Marston et al., 2003).

48

Theoretical Framework

Every educational institution must deal with change from policy to practice. There

are numerous theories of change from which a researcher may choose. I chose to

integrate Rosenfield and Gravois’ (1996) adaptation of Satir’s (1988) Model of Change

with Bryant’s (2004) Leadership’s Effect on Knowledge and Performance framework

using Bridge’s (1991) conceptual understanding of how organizations manage transitions

to contextualize my conceptual framework on the process of change. Rosenfield and

Gravois (1996) investigated a school restructuring process in order to improve the

delivery of more effective instructional practices for at-risk students. Rosenfield and

Gravois structured their decade of studies on Fullan’s (1993) notion that to become

agents rather than victims of change, instructional leaders must demonstrate

transformational as well as transactional leadership styles while transitioning through

Satir’s (1988) model of change.

Bryant (2004) developed a model depicting the impact knowledge has on

leadership during a period of change. This model fits Apple Valley’s need to manage the

transitions during a period of policy change quite well. I offer my description and

insights on how instructional leaders must demonstrate both transformational and

transactional leadership styles in order to manage transitions during a period of policy

change.

Bridges (1991) identified the relationship between change and transition. Change is

situational and external, as suggested by the new RtI policy (Bridges, 1991). Clear

49

communication is crucial in order to ensure that the new arrangements necessary to

prepare us for the change are understood (Bridges, 1991). Transition is internal;

“transition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new

situation” (Bridges, p. 3). Bridges (1991) identified the starting point for transition as

not the outcome, but the ending that one makes in order to leave the old situation behind.

Situational change hinges on the new policy, but psychological transition depends on

letting go of the old reality and the old identity that existed before the change took place.

Change is inevitable and improvement is possible. This conviction lies at the heart

of my conceptual framework. The direction and outcome of change can be influenced

(Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). Furthermore, change is a process, not an event (Hall &

Hord, 1987). An institution does not make a decision to implement a new policy and

begin the implementation the very next day (Fullan, 2007). Change is an additive

process, a process of ever-increasing options for how people interact, respond, and

behave (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). Many of the events that occur during the change

process can be anticipated (Fowler, 2001). The stakeholders are aware that there are

personal and institutional reactions that are predictable, and some negative reactions can

be minimized by appropriate interventions. As Fullan (2007b) debates, an instructional

leader facilitates the change via the stakeholders rather than makes change independently

from the stakeholders. Bridges (1991) concludes that transitions start with the end.

Therefore, implementation of the RtI policy requires ending the current special education

identification process. Organizations must prepare for this loss appropriately, as the

50

acceptance of the end, the new policy, will diminish the level of resistance (Bridges).

It is important to remember that the instructional leader provides opportunities for

the stakeholders to encounter. The instructional leaders must remember that transition to

implement a new policy, to change, begins at “late status quo,” where the institution

currently is functioning (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). As Satir (1988) and Bryant

(2004) stress, stakeholders often are doing the best they can with the knowledge and

skills they possess, and when they can do better, they will as they share their knowledge.

Stakeholders should be respected for where they start the change process. They cannot

know more than what they know nor be expected to see the desired change the way it is

planned (Bryant, 2004; Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). The instructional leader must

create awareness, educate, model, empower, and provide constructive feedback in order

to help the stakeholders move forward through the transitions of change (Bryant, 2004;

Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). This framework, as outlined below, will help to identify

what elements are necessary to support Apple Valley as they implement a new policy, RtI.

51

Figure 1 Organizational Change Theoretical Framework

For the purpose of this study, the stakeholders include the school board member, the

superintendent, the special education director, the curriculum and instruction supervisor,

the building principal, the classroom teacher, and two special education teachers. The

large box on the left is the process I adapted from Bryant (2004). See Figure I. It is at

this phase I believe stakeholders need to engage in conversation to inform one another

about the implications of new policy implementation. An element of Satir’s model is a

five-stage transition process that describes the effects each stage has on thinking, feeling,

performance, and problem-solving ability. Using these principles, I will describe how the

level of knowledge impacts the pace one moves through a change process. Each of

Satir’s phases is indicated by the gray shading. See Figure I.

52

Stage 1 - late status quo.

At this stage, Apple Valley is at a familiar place, which includes the current

practices they use to identify students as learning disabled. Currently, a team of

professionals, including the principal, classroom teacher, special education teacher,

school psychologist, parents, and another administrator, meets to review the evaluations

completed on the identified student. All members of the team are asked to share their

insights regarding how this student performs in various tasks, the student’s strengths as

well as weaknesses. The team then compares the student’s current classroom

achievements with the results of the school psychologist’s evaluations. If they identify

that there is a discrepancy between the student’s level of classroom performance and his

or her IQ, the child is identified as having a learning disability. Multiple stakeholders are

familiar with this process - it is a process of numbers and little subjectivity. Apple Valley

has used this process for over thirty years. During this time, the special education

identification team has established a comfortable, respectful collaborative group. Their

decisions are consistent and stakeholders are aware of the team’s role and responsibility.

Stakeholders know what to expect, how to react, and how to behave (Bryant, 2004; Satir,

1988).

Stage 2 - resistance.

As a result of IDEIA 2004, many school districts will design and implement a new

special education identification process. Apple Valley began to investigate the

implications of RtI implementation after the Pennsylvania Department of Education

53

(PDE) released their mandate in the spring of 2008. Apple Valley began to introduce this

new policy to various stakeholders by way of meetings and collaborative professional

development opportunities between the special education director and special education

teachers.

Based on the research by Satir (1988), Bryant (2004), and Rosenfield and Gravois

(1996), I anticipate that various stakeholders will confront this foreign element of a new

special education identification process with a negative response due to their lack of

knowledge regarding RtI. RtI threatens the stability and comfort of the current

stakeholders. Most stakeholders will resist by denying its validity, avoiding the issue, or

blaming the government for causing the problem as they work through the process of

creating and sharing knowledge in order to exploit it. Although not addressed explicitly

in Bryant’s work, it appears that inherent in his model, knowledge exploiting would be a

result of the stakeholders’ processes of knowledge creating and knowledge sharing

through collaboration and professional development. There is a need to provide

professional development to create knowledge, which later can be exploited. Through

collaborative efforts between special education and general education, knowledge can

continue to be shared and exploited during this phase of Resistance.

Based on these studies, one can conclude that resistance will clog awareness and

may conceal the goals identified by RtI (Satir, 1988; Bryant, 2004; Rosenfield & Gravois,

1996). At this point, stakeholders and followers need assistance from a transactional

leader to define the policy as well as from a transformational leader to empower and

54

exploit knowledge through innovation within the district (Bryant, 2004). Effective

transformational leaders will empower the stakeholders to become aware of and

overcome, through effective professional development practices, their desired reaction to

deny, avoid, or blame the policy mandates. Effective transformational leaders have

greater strength to overcome the resistance by working with the stakeholders than does

the transactional leader, who disseminates the knowledge through reminders and policy

clarification statements.

Stage 3 - chaos.

At this point Apple Valley may enter the unknown: RtI implementation. Once

stakeholders release the old policy, they enter into Satir’s (1988) phase of chaos, a period

of discomfort. During this neutral phase of chaos, stakeholders depend upon the cyclical

process of knowledge sharing, knowledge creating, professional development, and

collaboration. I integrated Bryant’s framework,which captures how an organization

exploits knowledge and experiences, with the new beginning through Satir’s phase of

integration. Relationships are challenged as old expectations may no longer be valid,

effective, or even possible. During this phase, stakeholders begin to lose their sense of

identity and exhibit feelings of anxiety and vulnerability. Leaders can prepare for this

phase by expecting a temporary downward spiral in the accuracy of special education

identification. Until the stakeholders embrace RtI as a positive change, chaos will

continue. During this time, it is essential that transformational leaders use empowerment

and innovation to integrate a shared model of understanding and RtI implementation

55

through knowledge exploitation. Everyone needs to feel supported, acknowledged, and

valued as the leader creates a safe environment for innovative implementation ideas to be

shared as stakeholders empower one another. The only tool transactional leaders have at

this point are policy mandate reminders and clarification of the RtI requirements.

Stage 4 - integration.

During this phase, the stakeholders identify how to implement the policy change in

a beneficial manner. The stakeholders begin to practice transformational traits of

empowerment and innovation as their implementation ideas are put into place (Bryant,

2004). The transformational leader gradually releases more responsibility to each

individual as more knowledge is exploited. RtI policy and practice alignment require

clear communication. Transformational leaders must remain engaged and continue to

empower as RtI implementation ideas may not be successful during initial attempts at full

implementation. Based on the synthesis of these models, my conceptual framework

indicates that collaboration, collegiality, clear communication, empowerment, and

innovation will be the key elements stakeholders must embrace in order to achieve a

successful integration of RtI implementation in Apple Valley. I will analyze the

transcripts in order to determine if these key elements are visible among Apple Valley’s

stakeholders.

Stage 5 - status quo.

If the RtI policy implementation is well designed and coordinated, then Apple

Valley will have complied successfully with PDE mandates. Apple Valley will be in

56

better accord and the special education identification process will stabilize at a more

accurate rate than in the previous Late Status Quo. During this stage, stakeholders will

continue to feel valued and empowered to implement the RtI process as they encourage

one another to continue to seek improvement and share knowledge. If a new policy

emerges, the transactional leader likely will begin to initiate the change process. If the

stakeholders identify a more effective way to implement RtI, the transformational leader

likely will initiate the change process.

Actions that inhibit coping with transitions block an institution’s ability to make the

policy change. They resist the foreign element of change. However, institutions which

are led effectively create an environment where stakeholders are encouraged to increase

their capacity for change through a process of exchanging and exploiting knowledge and

are much more able to respond effectively to new policy challenges. Levels and intensity

of empowerment and innovation could have direct effects on the amount of time the

institution spends in the phases of chaos and integration. My conceptual framework

applies Satir’s (1988) notion that an out-of-the-box idea is necessary to implement

change, which reflects Bryant’s (2004) premise that innovation and empowerment are

necessary elements to make a shift. The instructional leader, the catalyst, makes this

happen with positive thinking within the group of stakeholders as they embrace the

transitions during this period of change.

Conclusion

Using a single case study of a rural school in a central Pennsylvania district

57

responding to the federal and state Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEIA)

accountability pressures, I investigated, through an interview process, the types of

decisions that school district administrators, school principals, special education teachers,

and general classroom teachers make. I analyzed the positions of the stakeholders and

policy implementation during the process of change in order to draw conclusions about

the impact their decisions make on the implementation of RtI in first grade classrooms.

The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of multiple stakeholders

related to the transitions during the implementation of a new policy change. The

framework included a five-stage transition process that describes the effects each stage

has on thinking, feelings, performance, problem-solving ability, the concept of interaction

between instructional leaders and stakeholders, and feedback as decisions evolve. The

research provided insights and descriptions to fill the gap on how instructional leaders

must demonstrate both transformational and transactional leadership styles in order to

manage transitions during a period of policy change.

By using this decision-making model under the umbrella of stakeholder theory, the

critical role of the transition is identified. Further investigation about the decisions made

during the transition will assist during the analysis of the classroom implications.

Consequently, my research would add to that of Brazer and Peters (2007) by learning

more about principals’ and teachers’ actual implementation modes during critical

transitions within an educational organization where multiple stakeholders are involved.

58

Chapter III

Methodology

This chapter describes the research design and methodological approach to this

study. The research questions and procedures are outlined and the methods used for data

collection, instrument development, data analysis, validation, and human subjects review

are presented.

Introduction

A new mandate from the United States DoE requires school systems to determine

the process of policy implementation among school administrators, researchers, and

policy makers. The literature review documented the policy analysis of RtI and its role

and function in serving at-risk students. This study builds an understanding of the

different types of decisions that are made during a period of transition related to the

implementation of the RtI policy into practice. Explaining how the school administrators

and teachers experience RtI policy and practice may provide practical information for

other school districts interested in embracing the RtI process to support at-risk students.

Research Design

Qualitative research is an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness (Patton,

2001) and focus intently on a specific case or phenomenon (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 1989). A

qualitative approach was used for this study based on the purpose of the research to

discover those factors related to greater effectiveness of the change to the RtI

implementation process. This study provides an in-depth exploratory single case study of

59

the school district’s experiences during the change process. Qualitative research focuses

on process, meaning, and understanding as well as builds on abstractions, concepts,

hypotheses, or theories (Merriam, 1998). Qualitative methods allow the researcher to

study selected issues, cases, or events in detail and depth (Patton, 2001), and demonstrate

how all parts work together to form a whole (Merriam, 1998). Since this study focuses

on understanding a specific situation in depth, that is, the decisions made during a

significant change process, the interactions between administrators and teachers, and the

meaning people make as they go through the observation process, qualitative

methodology is appropriate. This study has an exploratory approach because I examined

the perceptions of the participants (administrators, school leaders, and teachers) in a

single school district to understand and interpret their experiences in moving toward

implementation of the RtI process.

As Mertens (2008) recommended, specific research methodology is not as critical

as the assumptions associated with various research paradigms. While current education

research within public policy seeks to put the student first, I bring to this research the

assumption that this goal inevitably falls by the wayside. Consequently, current education

policy must be approached carefully as education research affects social transformation.

Shannon (2008) recommended that we focus on changeable aspects of schooling.

Therefore, analyzing the process of change as a district passes through various transitions

will bring realism into the research picture. This realism helps researchers focus on the

main imperatives, meet the challenges of this new world, and develop a sound knowledge

60

base for the work that is done within these educational institutions (Fuhrman, 2006).

According to Mertens (2008), “researchers centered on ethical principles inherent in

social justice and human rights have power to share with the public whose interests are

denied by oppressive [educational] systems” (p. 105). The approach to this research

study is based upon Mertens’ premise that researchers explore objectivity as a means of

minimizing bias by using methods that embrace the accurate representation of those who

are denied access to social justice, in this case at-risk students who are misidentified and

denied educational services which would support their academic success.

Each qualitative approach has its advantages and disadvantages depending on three

conditions: a) the type of research question being asked, b) the control the researcher has

over behavioral events, and c) the focus on contemporary, not historical, phenomena

(Yin, 2003). Qualitative research also is known as “heuristic” research, which means to

discover or find. Researchers should be reflective through all stages of the research.

Researchers reflect on the data collected, the analysis of the data, the methodology used,

ethical dilemmas, and the observers’ frame of mind (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). It is

through reflection that issues of reliability and validity often associated with qualitative

research are resolved (Delamont, 2002).

Research questions.

Research questions, rather than objectives or hypotheses, typically guide qualitative

studies. This exploratory single case study was guided by research questions rather than

hypotheses. The overarching research question examined in this study was an initial

61

exploration of the participants’ experience with the move toward the RtI process: What is

the experience of the Apple Valley stakeholders in the implementation of the RtI process

in Apple Valley’s schools?

To guide my investigation of how Apple Valley manages transitions during RtI

implementation, I asked the following research questions:

How do the positions of the various stakeholders impact the transition of a new policy

implementation aimed at special education identification? What elements are necessary at

various stages within the change process to assist the school district? Why?

Probing for answers to these questions during the course of the research study

provided inquiry into and an opportunity for understanding the RtI implementation

process as it unfolds for Apple Valley. This understanding may guide other school

districts and researchers toward more meaningful decision-making practices when

implementing the RtI process.

Research Procedures

Methodology.

Qualitative study entails getting closer to the subject matter and having direct

personal contact with the people under study in their own environments (Patton, 2001). It

is time to consider what is known about the factors that impact change during the actual

process, and thus the exploratory approach was deemed appropriate for this study

(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Exploratory research allows analysis of the perceptions of

stakeholders (administrators, instructional leaders, and teachers) regarding the

62

implementation of the RtI process. This exploratory single case study involved observing

one group of stakeholders throughout the study.

Case study is a qualitative approach to research when “how” and/or “why”

questions, such as the questions framing this study, are being asked, as well as when the

investigator has little control over events and the focus is on contemporary phenomenon

within some real-life context (Yin, 2003). The researcher explores a single entity of

phenomenon (the “case”) bounded by time and activity and collects detailed information

by using a variety of data collection procedures (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003). “A case

study is a detailed examination of one’s setting, or a single subject, a single depository of

documents, or one particular event” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 54). Case study includes

two important components not found in other methodologies: direct observation of the

situation being studied and interviews with people directly involved in the study (Yin,

2003).

Exploratory research attempts to provide an accurate description of a peculiar

situation or phenomenon by gathering data and watching for patterns to emerge (Patton,

2001). Data was collected through person-to-person interviews and observations of

meetings on proposed RtI implementation. The use of observations allowed me to

“perceive reality from the viewpoint of someone inside the case study rather than external

to it” (Yin, 2003, p. 94). I studied the top-level administration (superintendent,

supervisor of curriculum and assessment, and supervisor of special education services),

instructional leaders (building principals), and classroom teachers (general and special

63

education). Face-to-face interviews with these stakeholders, administrators, instructional

leaders, and teachers allowed me to better understand members’ perceptions, thoughts,

feelings, and values about their experience related to moving toward the RtI process

(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The face-to-face interview format allowed for

conversations about certain issues that provided me with further insight into the types of

decisions that were made at each stage of RtI implementation. The perceptions of the

participants provided substantial data to determine the value of change and impact of

types of decisions made during the RtI implementation process. This information may

guide other school districts in understanding the impact decisions can have on a district-

wide initiative.

The process of engaging in a case study yields a rich database that may generate

hypotheses and new theories regarding school districts’ effective decision-making skills

when implementing new mandates (Brause & Mayher, 1991). Case studies are intensive,

holistic descriptions of an institution, person, process, or social unit used to describe or

evaluate some phenomenon or to build a theory (Merriam, 1998).

A case study design is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved. The interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation. Insights gleaned from case studies can directly influence policy, practice, and future research. (Merriam, 1998, p. 19)

I immersed myself in AVASD’s daily practices in order to contextualize their educational

setting. In this case, the types of decisions made during a district-wide response to

state legislation regarding RtI and the impact of these decisions were the main focus.

64

Qualitative research is based on sharing insight, discovery, and interpretation, not

hypothesis testing; it can help to explain why an innovation process worked or failed

(Yin, 2003). Case studies can be used to help others understand processes and programs

and to help people look at things through a new lens. Case studies are used to contribute

to knowledge of individual, group, organizational, and related phenomena and

organizational processes. “The goal will be to expand and generalize theories (analytic

generalization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalizations)” (Yin, 2003,

p. 10).

Patton (2001) discussed this kind of case study as a process evaluation. Since the

emphasis is on looking at how the outcome was produced, I employed content analysis

through a deductive analysis supported by my conceptual framework. According to

Mostyn (1985), Krippendorff (2004), Hsieh and Shannon (2005), Schilling (2006), and

Elo and Kyngas (2008), content analysis is a flexible research method used to identify

key issues. Krippendorff (2004) stated, “content analysis is a research technique for

making replicable and valid inferences from texts to the contexts of their use” (p. 18).

More specifically, qualitative content analysis is performed using the systematic

classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns (Hsieh & Shannon,

2005).

I analyzed how stakeholders perceive the RtI implementation process, how

supportive they felt during this process, and their anticipation of success. I examined the

influences stakeholders’ positions had on the transitions which impacted the change

65

process. I described what actually happens in the process of policy implementation and

include the perceptions and thinking of those going through the process.

Case studies also are useful when one tries to understand a particular problem in

depth. “A great deal can be learned from a few exemplars of the phenomenon in

question” (Patton, 2001, p. 23). A single case study like this one frequently is used to

document data and findings that can be classified as representative or typical (Yin, 2003).

The goal of these studies is to learn from conditions and circumstances that are common

and can be duplicated in similar settings. The information learned can be used by an

average person in a similar situation.

Participants.

In field research, sampling includes the selection of the research site, the people

being studied, and the events and processes being observed (Merriam, 1998). The

conceptual framework and research questions dictate sampling decisions. For this study

the method of sampling used is known as purposeful sampling (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).

The subjects selected in purposeful sampling were chosen to help facilitate the expansion

of the understanding being developed in the case study. In this case the sample included

all top-level administrators, building instructional leaders, and teachers who are affected

most by the implementation of RtI.

Profile of the Research Site

Demographics of the district and elementary school.

Apple Valley Area School District is a small, rural school district located within

66

south-central Pennsylvania. The total enrollment for the district is approximately 1,900

students. There are five buildings within the district. One is a high school building with

an attached building housing a middle school consisting of grades seven and eight. In

separate small towns, there are two intermediate elementary buildings housing grades

four, five, and six. The remaining building has been designated as an Early Childhood

Center. This building is the educational setting for all of the district kindergarten, first,

second, and third grade students. Each building has an assigned administrator, the

building principal.

The economic base of the district is largely agricultural (Adams County Economic

Development Corporation, 2005). Many of the businesses are involved directly in

growing, packing, or shipping a variety of fruits, processing fruit products, and

manufacturing equipment used in agriculture. There are a variety of seasonal job

opportunities associated with the fruit production areas.

The permanent population numbers tend to be stable with many of the adults

representing life-long district residents. Approximately 80% of the residents in the

county are homeowners (Gettysburg Adams Chamber of Commerce, 2006). There are a

few apartments or houses for rent in the area. However, some houses are used as a home

for multiple families. There is one large mobile home park in the district.

The school.

Over the last four school years, this elementary school has transitioned to an Early

Childhood Center. All of the district primary grades are housed in this building. Most

67

grade levels have six sections of students. During the 2008-2009 school year, when this

study took place, there were six first grade classrooms.

Along with these changes associated with the primary grade alignment, the teaching

and administrative staff has gone through a change. There have been three principals in

the last ten years. One of those principals moved into the district’s central office and

eventually became the district superintendent. The second in the succession remained for

six years. The principal instituted many changes, including the introduction of various

assessment tools, data analysis for instructional evaluation, and comparison of student

progress in each classroom. Unfortunately, the principal’s overall transactional

leadership style led to a feeling of mistrust and discomfort between staff members.

Teachers reported that they felt the principal created an atmosphere where they were not

able to trust each other or the principal’s motives or words. This climate, along with

some mishandling of situations surrounding the attempt to remove an ineffective teacher,

led to a lack of support from the teachers and anger from the parents. That principal

resigned from the position during the 2006-2007 school year. The current principal, who

came to the school at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, has extensive early

childhood experience, a limited special education background, and served as a principal

in another area school district.

The varied building leadership led to some interesting changes. In 1999, the district

instituted full day kindergarten. This was considered an innovative move at the time. The

small district committed a sizable portion of their limited resources to support this

68

change. This was well before full day kindergarten became an initiative at the state level

and before it became the popular trend it is in 2008. The impetus for this change came

from the kindergarten teachers. They recommended it, collected research and data about

what it had the potential to offer students, convinced the principal of its efficacy, and

helped craft the recommendation for the School Board of Directors. Those same teachers

are kindergarten teachers currently and have been joined by four additional teachers who

were added as the district’s population increased. The principal at the time of this

innovation is currently the superintendent. He continues to wholeheartedly support the

full day program.

Summary

The stakeholders participating in this study are members of one rural school district,

Apple Valley Area School District. The district made a commitment to offering a quality

educational experience for all students. Although the building where four of the

stakeholders work has been through leadership and philosophical shifts during the past

nine years, a dedicated group of teachers have remained committed to child-centered and

age appropriate education for their students. They have found ways to adapt curriculum,

instruction, and materials to meet the learning strengths and needs of their students.

Individual Stakeholders

In 2005, the Apple Valley administration and board identified a need to develop a

plan in order to comply with the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) call for

IDEIA compliance. Until this time, students were identified for special education

69

services using the discrepancy model (Bertram, 2008). After much research and

deliberation, primary stakeholders and district administration determined that it would be

best if they modified their current identification process in order to support the

discrepancy model as well as the RtI model. This critical decision pushed their decision-

making process into a web of stakeholders that would influence it. This case study

moved beyond an analysis of past research in order to demonstrate how the positions of

the various stakeholders impact the transition of a new policy implementation aimed at

special education identification.

Most often, the teacher is the last link in the chain of influence from policy to a

learning event - the final agent of the policy, as well as the target of the policy. Various

attributes of the teacher and the instruction are relevant regarding the policy’s impact on

the classroom. I considered the following list from Cohen, McLaughlin, and Talbert

(1993) during my data analysis to contextualize the teacher’s experiences: (a) Teachers’

conceptions of literacy knowledge; (b) teachers’ beliefs about learners’ capabilities and

learning; (c) teachers’ mastery of literacy content, grasp of pedagogical content

knowledge, and beliefs about good pedagogical practice; (d) teachers’ repertoires of

subject-related practices and strategies for coping with classroom contingencies; (e)

teachers’ decisions about what content to teach, how to engage learners in the learning

process, and how to assess what learners have learned; and (f) the actual structure and

demands of academic tasks in which learners engage.

Even though the teacher is often the last link when districts make implementation

70

decisions, Cohen, et al. (1972) identified these critical attributes that are necessary to

consider when working with at-risk learners. When stakeholders are asked to make

influential decisions, they should revisit the two critical questions to evaluate the impact

their decision will have on classroom practice: Has the best decision been made to

support the development of our at-risk literacy learners? Will this decision accelerate the

learning of these struggling students?

This case study included eight stakeholders as participants. These participants

included a school board member, the superintendent, the director of special education, the

coordinator of curriculum, an elementary principal, a first grade teacher, and two special

education teachers.

The school board member has been a member of the board for nearly two years. He

taught elementary school in a neighboring district for 5 years. He became a fifth grade

teacher in AVASD in 1979 and continued to teach for another 12 years. After completing

his master’s degree in administration, he became an elementary principal in AVASD. He

retired in 2006 after serving as a building principal for 17 years. This school board

member experienced the special education process professionally and personally; his

eldest son is a special needs child.

AVASD came under the leadership of the current superintendent just 5 years ago.

He had very little classroom experience because he was asked to step into an unexpected

administrative vacancy after teaching 5th grade for just 5 years. He had completed his

master’s degree in administration during these five years and had gained great respect

71

from his colleagues. He transitioned to the instructional leadership position as building

principal quite quickly and opened a brand new school during his five years as this

elementary principal. Once AVASD’s School Board received the retirement request from

the former superintendent, this elementary principal was approached to fill the vacancy,

and he graciously accepted this new challenge. During his term as superintendent, (which

will continue for another 5 years, as he just signed a new contract) he launched a new

Mathematics curriculum, hired extra literacy intervention teachers, and supported the

district’s one-to-one computer initiative. He completed his Ph.D. in educational

leadership in the spring of 2008. This superintendent begins each day by reflecting on

Lester Thurow’s words; “I am willing to pay for, indeed insist upon, the education of my

neighbors’ children, not because I am generous, but because I cannot afford to live with

them uneducated” (2005, p. 52). He truly believes in what he does as an instructional

leader.

The director of special education began her career in 1994 as an emotional support

teacher. She worked through the local intermediate unit, providing emotional support

services to K-12 students in various school districts. She transitioned into a consulting

role and became responsible for the training and professional development of local

special education teachers. It was in this role that she met AVASD’s current

superintendent. He was impressed with her abilities and knowledge of special education

policies and in 2003 he created a new position, the director of special education for

AVASD, to offer her. At the time, she was looking for a career change and accepted this

72

position. She sought stability with the curriculum, teachers, and students she was

serving. She continued to pursue her education in educational leadership as well. She

earned a Ph.D. in educational leadership in the fall of 2007. She believes that it is critical

for leaders to truly listen to their followers and to empower followers to become leaders.

The coordinator of curriculum describes herself as making children a top priority.

She knew she wanted to be an elementary teacher after volunteering in her sister-in-law’s

classroom. In her late 20s, she went back to school and entered the profession of

teaching in her early 30s. She taught every grade level except kindergarten during her

tenure as a teacher and reading specialist. She also served as an intermediate school

principal for 9 years and then became the supervisor of reading for 4 years before moving

to AVASD and beginning her career as the coordinator of curriculum and instruction. She

has her master’s in educational leadership and just successfully defended her dissertation

to earn a Ph.D. in Reading in the fall of 2008. She believes that all children deserve to

learn from teachers who understand and implement best practices across the curriculum.

She has been responsible for transitioning reading specialists into new roles as literacy

coaches during the past three years. During this transition she faced great adversity from

all levels of stakeholders.

The primary level building principal is nearing the end of her career. She has spent

more than 35 years in public education. She began her career as a kindergarten teacher

and taught in all K-6 grades before moving into an educational leadership position as an

elementary principal in a neighboring district. She applied what she learned from her

73

master’s in administration during her 25 years as an elementary building principal. Since

she wanted to “stay young” she decided to take on another challenge as the building

principal in a primary building (kindergarten through third grade). She has served as this

principal for the past two years. During this time, she has not only worked hard to learn

the dynamics of the faculty and staff, but she makes family involvement a top priority.

She values inviting, encouraging, and supporting families with regard to their children’s

education. She continues to learn about new literacy initiatives, a curriculum area and

implementation she concedes is a weakness. Her teachers view her as a truly

transformational instructional leader.

The first grade teacher who participated in this study is a seasoned teacher of 10

years. She demonstrates initiative as she works to collaborate with peers who more

directly are responsible for meeting the needs of special education students. She is not

intimidated to try new instructional strategies. However, she does appreciate time and

resources to implement reflective instructional practices.

Special Educator 1 has spent her career of 29 years strictly in special education.

However, she is new to public education, having left private education just three years

ago in order to try a new challenge. She views herself as someone who questions new

policies and initiatives but will implement any of these ideas if they are proven to work

with her students, whose needs she works hard to meet.

Special Educator 2 has spent 18 years in special education. However, she moved

into this primary building after working as a high school special education teacher for 15

74

years. At first, she felt the switch to the primary level was the wrong decision. She

believes that there is so much more required of elementary teachers than secondary

teachers. However, she soon fell in love with this challenge and developed a great desire

to conquer it. Now, she is quite content as a first grade special education teacher.

Demographics of stakeholders.

Descriptions of the participants in this study are included in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of Participants

Stakeholder Background in Education Gender Years in Position

Years in Education

School Board Member Elementary TeacherBuilding Principal M 2 34

SuperintendentElementary Teacher

Building PrincipalCentral Office Administration

M 5 15

Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment

Supervisor

Elementary TeacherBuilding Principal

Reading SupervisorF 5 22

Special Education Director

Instructional AssistantSpecial Education Teacher

Special Education Staff DeveloperF 5 14

Building Principal Elementary Teacher F 1 29

1st Grade Teacher Elementary Teacher F 10 10

Special Education Teacher 1 Special Education Teacher F 3 18

Special Education Teacher 2

Secondary Special Education Teacher F 3 29

75

Data Collection

A major strength of case study data collection is the opportunity to use many

sources of evidence. According to Yin (2003), the use of multiple sources of evidence

allows the researcher to address a broad range of historical, attitudinal, and behavioral

issues. An advantage is the development of converging lines of inquiry; thus, any finding

or conclusion in a case study is likely to be more convincing and accurate if it is based on

more than one source of information. It is likely that these sources strengthen the

probability that the data are credible and strong.

Yin (2003) also states that evidence for case studies may come from six sources:

documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and

physical artifacts. Merriam (1998) details data collection as consisting of direct quotes

obtained through interviews with people about their experiences, opinions, and feelings.

Observations, according to Merriam (1998), provide detailed descriptions of people’s

activities, behaviors and actions, and documents consisting of excerpts, quotations, or

entire passages. Merriam (1998) further states that “documents” is a broadly used term

that also can include printed and other materials relevant to a study, including public

records, personal documents, and physical artifacts. According to Marshall and Rossman

(1999), researchers typically use the following methods for gathering information:

participation in the setting, direct observation, in-depth interviews, and analyzing

documents. Not all methods need to be used with every study. For the purpose of this

study, to understand the perceptions of multiple stakeholders related to the transitions

76

during the implementation of a new policy change, two types of data sources were used:

observations and interviews.

In this study, data collection included observation and semi-structured person-to-

person interviews during the fall and winter of 2008-2009. The data collection methods

isolated specific areas to study related to the experience of the stakeholders during the

decision-making process. Since the data collection occurred in the moment, I paid

attention to decisions made in the moment. I did not know what the decision points

would be until I worked in Apple Valley. Consequently, multiple forms of data were

collected throughout various observations which helped me to contextualize the study.

Appendix A contains the interview protocols and Appendix B outlines the Observation

Review Form.

Interviews and observations.

The observation notes from each child study meeting, attended by the special

education teachers, classroom teachers, and school principal, were typed after each

observation. T. I highlighted comments related to discussion of the student performance

data, next steps for RtI implementation, statements appearing to be in agreement or

disagreement of policy change with those of other stakeholders, and identified comments

about the policy change that needed clarification. Immediately before an interview with a

participant, I reviewed the research protocol and noted any questions related to

information obtained during field visits that might require further probes. Information

from these observation notes used during any previous sessions were transferred onto the

77

Observation Review Form.

During the first meeting with each participant, I described the research study,

explained the informed consent process (Appendix C), and discussed the confidential

nature of the process. After I received the participant’s informed consent form, I

conducted and audio-recorded the interview according to my interview protocol. Upon

completion of this taping, I sent the tape to a transcription service for a verbatim

transcription of the interview. I reviewed the typed transcripts and shared these with the

participants to ensure accuracy.

Since the primary method for collecting data included interviews, it was critical for

me to design semi-standardized interview questions (See Appendix A.) (Berg, 2004).

Slight deviations are allowed in order to adapt to the context and to gather as much

information as possible. Therefore I prepared an interview protocol to ensure consistency

across the various stakeholders. I designed main questions to guide the interview yet also

included Berg’s (2004) specific types of questions: essential questions, follow-up

questions, throw-away questions to establish rapport and to gather demographic data, and

probing questions. I created a protocol and piloted this protocol with 12 mentors in the

field to test for content validity. Each mentor provided critical, constructive feedback for

me to use as I revised the questions. The feedback included the order in which I asked the

questions and their content, as well as the way I approached each question in my dialogue

with the interviewees. My mentors advised me to allow for more flexibility with regard

to the way I responded to interviewee responses. Therefore, I revised the protocol to

78

capture the structured conversations more holistically before using it as a data collection

tool in Apple Valley.

I followed Ary, Jacobs, Razaveih, and Sorenson’s (2006) guidelines for writing

good interview questions: questions phrased for comprehension by all stakeholders;

questions phrased so as to elicit unambiguous answers; questions phrased to avoid bias

that may predetermine a stakeholder’s answer; avoiding questions that might mislead

because of unstated assumptions; avoiding leading questions which imply a desired

response; avoiding questions that may elicit embarrassment, suspicion, or hostility in the

stakeholder; and avoiding “double-barreled” questions which attempt to ask two

questions in one (p. 425-427). Consequently, I removed much of the subjective elements

from the inquiry situations in order to leave the objective facts for analysis. Questions

were open-ended to some degree to allow for interviewees to expand on their

perspectives as they related to the quality of orientation, induction, and socialization

experience and the stakeholder’s key role in the decision-making process.

Transcription and synopsis.

After I received the written transcription, I listened to the audiotape while reading

the transcription to note any errors. All errors were corrected on the electronic copy of

the transcription. I used the written transcription to construct a synopsis of the interview

for inclusion in a summary report that I used to further guide my analysis. Creswell

(2005) reports that completing a synopsis helps the researcher get a general sense of the

data. While completing the synopsis, I made notes on how the case was progressing,

79

information about any aspect that might differ among participants in the case, and

information that needed to be clarified with the interviewee. I noted that all stakeholders

consistently referred to the pace of implementation. Consequently, I needed to consider

changing my research questions in order to capture the essence of this policy change.

After I created the synopsis, I reviewed the transcriptions of the interview to note

the type of additional probes used. To determine whether particular probes were needed

for specific interview questions throughout the study, I tallied the types of probes (detail,

elaboration, clarification, and contrast) used during each interview. According to Patton

(2002), probes are follow-up questions that include: (a) detail probes that interviewers

use to obtain a complete picture about an activity by asking basic questions (who, where,

what, when, and how); (b) elaboration probes that encourage the respondent to keep

talking; (c) clarification probes that tell the respondent more information is needed to

understand what was said; and (d) contrast probes that are a type of clarification asking

the respondent to compare one feeling or action to another.

I asked mentors who are familiar with case study methodology to peer review the

interview synopsis. The synopsis was examined for any information from the interview

that may have been omitted and for its objectivity. Any comments provided by the

reviewer were discussed and included based on these two factors. The synopsis was sent

to the interviewee via email or US mail. The interviewee was asked to read the synopsis

and provide feedback. All but one interviewee thanked me for sharing the synopses.

Each interviewee agreed with the synopses.

80

Maintaining data.

For each of the cases, I will maintain for seven years a locked organizational file

containing field notes and observation forms for the interviews and meetings.

Transcriptions of audiotape interviews with the participants will be placed in the locked

file for each case along with a synopsis of each transcribed interview.

Data Analysis

According to Marshall and Rossman (1999), data collection and data analysis must

be a simultaneous process. They typically go hand in hand to build a coherent

interpretation of the data. I was guided by initial concepts and developing understandings

but modified these while collecting and analyzing the data. The data was organized

categorically and chronologically, reviewed repeatedly, and continually coded. Marshall

and Rossman (1999) suggested a summary of these steps as an ideal way to organize

data, and the steps used in this study, include:

1. Organized and prepared the data for analysis. This involved transcribing

interviews verbatim, visually scanning material, and arranging data depending on

the information.

2. Read through all the data to obtain a general sense of the information and to

reflect on its overall meaning.

3. Began detailed analysis with a coding process. Coding is the process of

organizing material into “chunks” or taking text data and labeling the information

with a term.

81

4. Used a coding process to generate a description of the setting or people as well

as themes for analysis. Description involved a detailed rendering of information

about people, places or events in a setting. Then used the coding to generate a small

number of themes. (Themes are information that appear as major findings in

qualitative studies and are stated under separate headings in the findings sections of

studies. They should display perspectives from multiple individuals.)

5. Used a narrative passage to convey the findings of the analysis. Decided how the

description and themes are represented in the qualitative narrative.

6. Made an interpretation or meaning of the data.

The method for analyzing data for this study was content analysis, which involved

looking for patterns of information as they relate to the framework suggested earlier in

the proposal (Krippendorff, 2004). Data analysis is the process of making sense out of

the data by consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have said and what I

have seen and read (Merriam, 1998). In case study, data analysis consists of examining,

categorizing, tabulating, testing, or otherwise recombining the evidence to address the

initial propositions of the study (Yin, 2003). I collected, reviewed, read, summarized, and

organized the data from observations of the participants’ meetings and interviews with

participants. What one learns through qualitative interpretation depends on the

researcher’s view. I structured the interviews and field notes from observations to allow

for only low-level inferences and as little as possible interpretation about what was

happening in the interactions between multiple stakeholders. Consequently, my values

82

and beliefs may influence or contaminate the observations made. In order to help reduce

these biases, I followed a structure described by Tesch (1990) which included four steps:

(a) getting a sense of the whole phenomenon being studied (position of the stakeholder

and the impact on the process of change); (b) grouping themes across groups

(instructional leaders, teachers, and administrators); (c) coding themes to identify

facilitators and barriers to the change process; and (d) identifying and categorizing

participant responses regarding suggestions for RtI implementation. Each of these steps is

outlined in the following section.

Getting a sense of the whole.

First, I described each participant in the research study using the background

information obtained from the interviews. I read and reread each interview transcript

from. The step-by-step process began by identifying key phrases and statements related to

the personal experiences of each participant. I noted patterns that emerged from the

statements of each participant and sorted these statements into common groupings. I

completed this process for each participant’s transcript and compared the groupings that

emerged to the previous transcript. I used Excel to create an electronic data file and

generate a master list of the groupings. Merriam (1998) notes that this master list

constitutes a primitive outline or classification system reflecting the recurring regularities

or patterns in the study. The initial phase of analysis provided me with a general

understanding of the stakeholder’s position and the impact this position has on the

process of change, as well as with a core foundation of information.

83

Grouping themes across groups.

Next, I combined data from all the questions across the groups (instructional

leaders, teachers, and administrators) to organize the data. By combining the data from

participants across the groups, key themes emerged. A process of sifting and sorting

information for experiential elements most important to the research question transpired

(Crabtree & Miller, 1999). The analysis located the key phrases and statements from the

interviews that were related directly to the research questions. I used content analysis to

note patterns or themes that emerged from the statements. I used the constant

comparative analysis method to sort the patterns into common groupings (Krippendorff,

2004; Merriam, 1998), which were organized into categories. Category construction

involved comparing respondents’ remarks, sorting them into groupings that have

something in common, and noting new or differing perceptions from the participants

(Yin, 2003).

Coding themes to identify facilitators and barriers.

I determined the factors participants perceived to facilitate or impede the

implementation of RtI during the third step of the analysis. The use of multiple interviews

with a single case study provides an opportunity to learn from individual cases when

studying a common process (Stake, 2006). The analysis in this step brought together the

information across the RtI decision-making process and I used an analytic process which

allows coordination and synthesis of data during a cross-case analysis (Merriam, 1998).

Identifying and categorizing participant suggestions.

84

The last step guided the final phase of analysis. I identified and categorized the

suggestions of the participants to implement RtI. Throughout the interviews, participants

were asked for their suggestions regarding RtI implementation. Each participant also was

asked about additional recommendations they may have for improving the process of

policy implementation. I compiled and analyzed the responses for commonalities and

nuances among the participants.

Trustworthiness and confirmability of the findings.

I used different strategies throughout the data collection and analysis processes to

ensure trustworthiness, confirmability, generalizability, and transferability of the findings.

These included: (a) obtaining feedback from my dissertation committee about the

interview questions; (b) using a semi-structured interview guide with similar questions

for all participants; (c) audio taping and transcribing interviews verbatim; (d) listening to

audiotapes and verifying transcripts for accuracy; and (e) sending a synopsis of the

interview transcription to respective participants for their comments. The synopsis

served as a member check process to determine whether the findings were accurate and

whether the description was complete and realistic (Creswell, 2005).

Triangulation of data sources was performed to enhance the overall accuracy of the

study. Triangulation is the process of collecting data from different individuals,

collecting different types of data, and using different methods to collect data (Creswell,

2005; Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002). The purpose of triangulation was to examine

a single phenomenon from more than one perspective. By collecting data from different

85

individuals within the school district, different perceptions and experiences were

expressed and richer information could be generated. In addition, validity was increased

by using multiple sources of evidence. By comparing information from different

participants, I verified processes and noted contradictions in processes and practices. I

created a more complete picture of the phenomenon being studied once the data was

converged. Comparing evidence obtained from various data collection methods

enhanced accuracy and logic when interpreting meaning from the information (Anfara,

Brown, & Mangione, 2002; Stake, 1995). The different data collection methods

(observations and interviews) allowed me to offset the weaknesses of one method by

using the strengths of the other method.

Human subject consideration.

Participating in the study was voluntary and posed limited risk or harm to the study

subjects due to anonymity; identifying information about participants was not collected.

Through the purposeful sample technique, I selected participants based on criteria that

were relevant to the study’s research questions. The school and administrative

participants involved in these cases signed an informed consent and audio release form

(See Appendix C). I described the study methodology in detail to all subjects before they

agreed to participate. I informed the participants of the efforts I took to ensure

confidentiality. I contacted the participants to set up times for interviews throughout the

study. The responses of the individual participants were not revealed to anyone other than

myself. The names of the instructional leaders, teachers, and administrators and school

86

site are not provided in the research document. Throughout the data collection process, I

gave the participants opportunities to address issues which concerned them. Participants

had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. A human subjects review for this

study was submitted and approved by Union Institute and University's Human Research

Internal Review Board (IRB).

Limitations.

This small sample is not rigorous enough to allow for broad generalizations, and

transferability is a concern in an exploratory single case study of this dimension.

However, the project may provide insights into some of the pervasive issues related to the

implementation of RtI within a rural public school system and lays the groundwork for a

comprehensive and broader project to track the RtI implications across Pennsylvania.

This study also builds upon Brazer and Peters’ (2007) study to demonstrate further how

instructionally oriented decisions develop in a context of multiple, external and internal

stakeholders. It further explains the implications of choices made by leaders within the

process of change.

Role of the Researcher

My role in AVASD has evolved since 2004, when I had been asked to identify and

support best instructional literacy practices for all teachers to implement. AVASD

administrators identified a need to improve literacy instruction in all classrooms,

kindergarten through twelfth grade. I worked with teachers inside and outside of their

classrooms in order to support their need and desire to streamline their instructional

87

approaches. I developed close, professional relationships with many individuals. I had

high expectations for instructional delivery to meet the needs of all learners in each of

their literacy classrooms. I also had high expectations for administrators to hold teachers

accountable and provide support for the teachers’ instructional decision making. Even

though I held these high expectations for all teachers, in order to complete my study as

objectively as possible, six of the eight interviews were with individuals with whom I

previously had had less than one hour of contact. I had assumed that all teachers were

implementing these effective instructional practices. During the interviews, I realized that

this was not an accurate assumption. I also brought my bias that AVASD had incredibly

open communication between the multiple stakeholders and thus the data gathered

through the interviews would be very similar. I soon realized that communication about

policies was different from communication about instruction. I had much more contact

with the other two individuals as their roles warranted collaborative planning for the

professional development I facilitated.

Conclusion

There have been remarkably few studies at the school-site level in educational

administration that have explored deeply the directive leadership that occurs in the face

of altered policies and revised or sharpened expectations. The leadership includes an

administrative process of simultaneously holding-on, letting go, and reshaping anew. The

single case study exploratory approach allowed analysis of the perceptions of

stakeholders regarding the implementation of the RtI process through the numerous

88

meetings and interviews and a thorough review of the obtained data. The benefits of such

an approach are multiple. This form of analysis requires public conversation regarding

the relevant stakeholders and their interests. Analyses of stakeholders’ interests offer a

way of separating the data without prejudice of competing interests. Second, the

legitimate interests of all stakeholders are honored as competing interests are balanced.

Finally, by using a stakeholder lens, the social and educational systems are integrated

closely to prevent policy debates from the outside to permeate moral scrutiny as critical

decisions are made.

As indicated in the literature review, the leadership of implementing policy change

remains one of the least appreciated and least understood of organizational and

administrative activities. Such topics as balancing continuity and change (Huy, 2002),

moving back and forth between bridging and bonding (Putnam & Goss, 2002), and the

transitioning of organizational identities with a change in policy (Bartel, 2001) are just

now surfacing. Other than some preliminary inquiry into school reform as a problem of

change (Malen, Croninger, Munce, & Redmond-Jones, 2002), there has not yet been

much attention to how a successfully led transition from one state of policy and

organization to another could possibly be a precursor to instructional improvement.

Instructional leaders have the opportunity to empower teachers during the change process

(Blase & Blase, 1997).

89

Chapter IV

Findings

Introduction

This chapter reports the findings of the data gathered to investigate the study’s

research questions. Chapter IV is organized around three broad themes that emerged

from the data: policy perceptions, policy implementation, and perceptions and

recommendations for change process. Chapter V will offer an analysis of the themes and

answer the research questions. The purpose of this study was to understand the

perceptions of multiple stakeholders related to the transitions during the implementation

of a new policy change. In an effort to address the process of change in one rural school

district, I explored this topic with multiple stakeholders at various levels. Eight people

from Apple Valley Area School District, representing seven different groups of

stakeholders, participated in this study. The participants included one first grade teacher,

two primary special education teachers, a building principal, a special education director,

a curriculum, instruction, and assessment (CIA) director, a superintendent, and a school

board member.

Overview of the Study

This case study sought to understand the perceptions of various stakeholders related

to the transitions during the implementation of RtI. This chapter reports findings of the

study and is organized according to the research questions by themes and patterns in the

interviews. The order of the participant roles are as follows: first grade teacher, special

90

education teachers, building principal, special education director, CIA director,

superintendent, and school board member.

The research questions that guided this study are as follows:

1. How do the positions of the various stakeholders impact the transition of a new

policy implementation aimed at special education identification?

2. What elements are necessary at various stages within the change process to assist

the school district? Why?

Policy Perceptions

After interviewing the eight stakeholders, I found that there is a shared

understanding of how the special education identification process currently works. The

special education director summarized it best:

Well we start with a teacher determining that a child is struggling or having a need in a particular area. And then that teacher works through different interventions or strategies within the classroom. If the teachers find that their strategies are not working at the elementary level the teacher would enter the student in the IST [instructional support team] process depending on what the concern was. Emotional concerns would probably be sent more to the SAP [student assistance program] team and the academic concerns would primarily be brought before the IS team. The IS team meets and they discuss the child and they have a lot of strategies there. We create a document. . . .and there’s a whole process for IS team. And they meet on their own and they meet with a parent and they discuss strategies and you run through a 30 day intervention and then evaluate where you are and possibly run through another 30 day evaluation determining whether or not the child is meeting success. We also evaluate data compared to a learning disability diagnosis. So if I have a young lady in 3rd grade who is struggling in her academic area and we find through data analysis that she actually is making progress even though she’s not on grade level, because she’s making progress commensurate with her peers she would not be eligible for special education. So even if she goes through the IST process and she’s still

91

struggling, even though she’s making good progress, she would not be referred because we already know she wouldn’t qualify. So once they move through the IST process the team would make the determination as to whether or not she would require a special education referral and then that referral would be made and I have my own psychologist here so I would do it in house versus through the IU [intermediate unit] which is what most of the districts in our IU have.

The special education director’s description implies that AVASD currently

implements a systematic discrepancy model approach to identify at-risk students for

special education and label the students with a learning disability. However, unbeknownst

to many other stakeholders, embedded within this process are critical elements of the RtI

process. These elements include the intervention team, the intervention design, and the

progress monitoring of an at-risk student when instruction has changed.

However, when I probed further to find out the stakeholders’ understandings of the

new RtI policy, there were a variety of responses. I found that this issue was impacted

directly by the amount of information the district shared with the various individuals.

The amount of information that one received was a result of the stakeholder’s position

within the district. Only those who have “central office” positions such as superintendent,

curriculum, instruction, and assessment supervisor, and the special education director had

a common understanding of the RtI policy. Their common understanding included these

critical factors: RtI is an education policy, RtI includes three tiers, and RtI requires

teachers to differentiate their instruction by intensity and duration.

The overarching research question allowed me to get an initial sense of what a

policy change meant to various stakeholders. During the interviews with the participants,

92

questions were asked about demographics, background, and prior experiences with the

special education identification procedures. The data was extracted from the transcripts

for an initial organization of the data. Then I combined the data across the stakeholders

to reorganize the data for further analysis.

Because policy implementation requires understanding the policy, in this case RtI,

participants were asked to describe their perceptions about the current special education

identification process, the purpose of RtI, how Apple Valley Area School District

supports new initiatives, and the needs for successful policy implementation. Findings

are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Perceptions Related to Understanding RtI

Stakeholder RtI Understanding

School Board Member -

Superintendent o

Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment Supervisor o

Special Education Director *

Building Principal o

1st Grade Teacher o

Special Education Teacher 1 o

Special Education Teacher 2 o

Note: * indicates full understanding, o indicates partial understanding, - indicates limited understanding

As Table 2 demonstrates, the majority of the participants have only a partial

93

understanding of the policy, and this most certainly impacts its implementation and

application.

Policy misperception: RtI as a special education identification process.

All but one participant, the school board member, indicated their partial

understanding of RtI by stating the purpose of RtI was to develop a process for special

education identification using an intervention-based model. The school board member

was very general in his response and noted that it was a new special education policy. “I

haven’t been informed about RtI.” The special education director shared the most

explicit understanding of RtI.

Well RtI is general ed. I know that you’ll hear people say it’s both, it isn’t. RtI is general education. RtI was instituted because we were placing children into special education programs without ever having given them the benefit of interventions being completed in the general education classroom. RtI typically is broken into three, sometimes four levels, the initial level being the broadest band of students. That would be your differentiating instruction. Your second level or middle band is a much smaller group of children. That’s where you would increase intensity, duration, you would decrease the student teacher ratio, with the top part being the smallest yet, a very very small group of students. We’re still in general ed but we’re doing a little bit more of modifications versus accommodations. We’re doing a little bit more of direct teaching and direct programs geared toward increasing a skill. And then with not meeting what we should be meeting at the top of that third level would be a possible referral for special education.

The other stakeholders were aware that RtI was intended to refine the special education

identification process by requiring general education teachers to differentiate their

classroom instruction more intensely. However, there was not a consensus that RtI is in

fact a general education policy and not a special education policy. The confusion stems

from the fact that RtI is in IDEIA, the law which prescribes special education regulations.

94

Policy implementation.

Policy implementation implies involvement by various stakeholders; all of the

administrative stakeholders believed that they were included in the RtI implementation

discussions. However, the superintendent shared, “The most important stakeholders to

have involved in this process are the building principals, the special education staff, and

the psychologists.” Even though the first grade teacher is piloting a process that is very

similar to RtI, she did not identify herself as one of the critical stakeholders; “I was not

consulted as a stakeholder - I am just implementing the intervention process in first grade

and working with the instructional support team.”

Both special education teachers agreed that even though they currently are not

involved in the implementation planning, they believe they will be involved in the near

future. Special Educator 1 shared:

I mean I think that in a special educator role I’m going to be involved to some degree. It won’t happen maybe right away. Maybe I could consult with, provide possible ways to different changes in the classroom. Maybe observe and see where the needs are of the children in a consultative way initially.

There seems to be miscommunication about the role of special educators. Special

educator 1 has no distinct direction to follow and it is unclear exactly what her

responsibilities will include once the RtI policy is implemented. Special educator 1

proceeded to share her perception of the type of education policy that RtI is:

Now I’ve heard people say it’s a general education thing - I don’t think it’s just a general education thing. And that’s something else that maybe as a district we need to determine - where we will place RtI and to what extent. And depending on that there may need to be some sort of question: Do I need additional time to do what I

95

need to do to fulfill that role?

Special Educator 1 is not able to define RtI clearly as it relates to her position in AVASD.

The curriculum, instruction, and assessment supervisor summed up the understanding or

the lack of understanding of RtI most coherently:

I don’t know that we’ve actually had that conversation [stakeholder involvement] at the central office or even at the administrative level. I know we’ve [administrators] all been to trainings on RtI. But I don’t know that we’ve ever sat down and come up with a cohesive plan about how this would look or how we would move to implementation of this. And I think it really needs to be a way of thinking rather than another new initiative that we’re overlaying on top of everything. I think we probably need to not be talking so much about RtI and walking the walk.

The curriculum, instruction, and assessment supervisor continued to advocate for a

collaborative effort between special education and general education to think through the

process of all teachers embracing responsibility for all students to learn. As was the case

with understanding the purpose of the policy, it seems evident that stakeholders also had

various levels of involvement in the implementation of RtI, even though all were

intricately important to this outcome.

All stakeholders identified RtI as a policy that must be implemented in order to

follow the letter of the law and to meet the instructional needs of all children. However,

there was not a consensus as to exactly what this policy includes, nor was there a

consensus about the length of time a new policy implementation should take. The school

board member, a veteran of public education, believed that “teachers need to be frustrated

in order to convince them that their student does indeed need help.” On the other hand,

96

the first grade teacher had no opinion to share. When reflecting back on RtI as policy, the

CIA supervisor shared that all stakeholders have a professional obligation to implement

RtI sooner rather than later.

To me RtI in that purest form makes a lot of sense. The part that I can’t embrace, when I hear people talking about the RtI model, is, okay the child’s in level 1, here is a list of materials and programs that you should put them in. I think that creates a whole separate set of issues that have to be dealt with including student’s self esteem. And I also think that that takes the focus off the fact that the key to learning is good instruction, and it becomes very easy for the default to be, well let’s just put him in another program. And how many programs you going to try before you find one that works with that kid? And I think that’s really not fair to the child that keeps struggling and stumbling around in the dark trying to find something. I think that you need to have some ideas about if these are worthwhile interventions and these are worthwhile changes to instruction. Let’s try this, let’s try this. I think those things should be in place. And in that form I can accept and embrace RtI, but not, okay let’s put him in Wilson Reading. . . I really believe that at levels 1 and 2 the change should be in instruction. It should be about what’s happening in the classroom, it shouldn’t be about what’s wrong with the kid. And I do believe that the discrepancy model really sort of supports that mentality. What’s wrong with this kid? He’s smart enough but he’s not doing it. What’s his problem? I think RtI levels 1 and 2 is, what’s the problem with what’s going on in the classroom that this child’s not able to do it? And I also think the discrepancy model makes it very easy to label a kid and the kid stays that way whatever you say he is. I think that if you use the RtI model you’re giving the child coping strategies that they’ll be able to use not just in your classroom but other places in life and in other classrooms. So if the default’s going to be, we’ll put him in this program, you’ve lost that benefit.

The CIA supervisor continued to describe the culture which she felt must be in

place before RtI can be implemented successfully:

I think if we can really develop a culture where we look at RtI that way we’ll be able to implement that change. If we’re going to develop a culture where, okay you have a kid where you want to move into level 1 and now on top of what you’re doing in the classroom you’re going to have to use Project Read with one child, the benefit is going to be much more difficult to reach. . . .I could develop

97

this culture but I think first of all the key would be to make sure that all general ed teachers have very good instructional strategies in their tool box. I think they need to understand how kids learn. I think they need to implement those strategies that have been identified as being highest impact on student learning. And I believe they’re all using those in bits and pieces but I think they need to look at that as a whole. . . there are teachers out there who have good instruction but we need to make sure that it’s the most effective instruction and that it’s systematic and consistent.

Special education teacher 2 identified obstacles to the culture that the CIA

supervisor strives to create:

Well just as we just discussed, teachers, there are teachers that have been teaching like you said for 5 years, and they’ve well established their 5 year routine, their 30 year routine. This is how I’ve always done it how come they’re not learning? I’ve always done it this way, I’ve never had any problems, and I’m not gonna change because it’s their fault they’re not learning, it’s their parents’ fault that they’re not learning. And so the change, any change is scary but if it’s outside your comfort zone and something that you don’t understand or don’t want to understand or don’t want to go back to school or you know I’ve given my time, my summers are my summers. When it’s 3:50 that’s my time. And RtI is going to take all of that, and a lot of people aren’t willing to do that. And that’s a big problem. A big obstacle would be relearning or trying new instructional strategies and the time commitment to even learn the process of RtI. And the differentiated instruction and the different interventions taking the time to look at a child. Now our guidance counselor does identify learning styles of all the first grade children. Even just having the teachers implement that is kind of a difficult thing and that, you know I see differentiated instruction and co-teaching all part of the RtI and that’s just not really happening because I’ve never taught like that and I’m not going to teach like that and there’s something wrong with those kids because they’re just not learning.

Special Educator 1 went through a self-reflective monologue to draw similar conclusions:

I just think RtI might push some people over the edge to implement it, as it stands now. . . . I also see a concern that students who do have those needs may not be referred because you can only manage so much in the classroom, the teachers can only take on so much and still be held to that curriculum they have to teach and implement. And you know I just don’t know how successful it will be. . . . And

98

the children who really do have those needs, need to be, I guess, serviced quicker. I really question that part of it. I don’t think it’s going to speed anything up about those kids who really will eventually end at the top of the tier. I just don’t know if we have the staff available to manage it. . . I also think we will have many frustrated teachers. Children who are not being serviced, I mean they’re not learning and progressing in their academics. Possibly their parents will also be an issue, irate parents that their child’s needs aren’t being met. Just kids not being successful would be a very possible negative consequence. . . .I mean I could see myself saying I’m not doing that. I can’t do another thing, I’m not doing it. I think it’s wise when you’re working with people above you to let them. I’ll do that, yes of course it’s my job, but something else has to be removed in order to be able to handle that and to do it well.

The new building principal, fully aware of how much change and philosophical

conflict the staff has undergone over the past several years, captured a realistic

perception:

First of all just with rolling out anything new it’s just getting everybody to understand it and not get frightened to the point of being paralyzed. For people making paradigm shifts is always a challenge for certain people. So there’s that. There’s the kind of question of whose responsibility is this and that’s where it’s interesting, because I know it’s coming but there’s not really been any big announcement at this district of, okay as of today. And so I’m a little, oh yeah I gotta do that. That’s where I am right now, and you even talking about it is motivating me. But I think the problems will be with the whatever changes we need to go from what we’ve got because I think we’ve got a pretty successful system. Sometimes it takes some time adjusting for everybody.

Special Educator 2 has had personal experience with a model she perceives as

very similar to what is required of RtI and openly shared her reflective thoughts:

I’ve read, I think the model is a good one. And I’ve tried it out. I have a teacher in the general ed classroom that is fantastic and wants to do whatever he can. And I’ve tried the differentiated instruction with social studies, and I did a unit, and it was fantastic, and the kids loved it and we loved it. Now we do some co-teaching for shared reading. And just some of the kids for that, and for word study, and I do some manipulatives with them and some different things. And just that little bit makes such a big difference. I think it would be, and I think there are a lot of

99

teachers here that if handled correctly would welcome RtI. Because when you’re meeting the needs of the children the behaviors can go down. You feel better because you’re seeing learning taking place. The kids feel better about themselves because they’re learning and they’re not the same ones being inside at recess or being called on and not knowing the answer. I mean I just think it’s a whole snowball kind of situation and yes I think it could be very successful here. At least in this building. I can’t speak really for any of the other buildings in the district.

Based on these findings, it is apparent that stakeholders with various levels of

understanding of RtI reacted differently to the implementation of the new policy. The

first grade teacher seems to be most frustrated by AVASD’s policy implementation

history. She shared, “Apple Valley just does it - they just do the next thing that comes

down the pike.” The building principal identified success as when “children receive the

kind of help they need at the time and place that they need it. That we’re able to be that

flexible.” The building principal continued to identify a caution similar to the one her

first grade teacher identified:

Lack of policy implementation success or as you call it, failure, would be that it’s just another thing and that we still want to do what we’ve always done and we still have kids that are not successful and we don’t seem to know why.

The school board member took a less personal approach and labeled RtI as an educational

policy, just another policy. He reminded me that AVASD “is NOT in the business to

make their teachers successful, they are in business to make kids successful.” The

superintendent continued to shift the responsibility of RtI implementation to the

shoulders of the special education staff. “It is really special education’s responsibility.

This is where the training needs to originate.”

Stakeholders were interviewed to evaluate their experience and perceptions of the

100

RtI policy and possible implementation processes for Apple Valley Area School District.

Differences existed among the stakeholders about the need to adopt the RtI policy and the

implications of change. Among all stakeholders, a common theme of a willingness to

share their ideas and feelings emerged. In particular, a couple of deeper themes emerged,

collaboration and a vision of possibility. It’s very seldom that general education and

special education teachers are able to see beyond their own curriculum and identify that

there is a common goal, student success, and that each teacher must take responsibility to

ensure each child achieves it. The stakeholders identified a deep desire to work with one

another, to identify best instructional strategies that help each child and share these with

one another. The stakeholders began to see empowerment and the power of motivation

and to identify the significance of their individual roles within AVASD’s plan to

implement RtI. As each individual shared his or her different perceptions of how RtI

implementation would change current special education identification procedures, a

second theme surfaced, the desire to help all children meet success. The stakeholders

agreed that all children deserve to meet each instructional opportunity with success. A

few stakeholders began to see that this was not in their daily practice and shared great

remorse. However, realizing that RtI policy implementation, which ensures that each

child meets success in each instructional opportunity, these stakeholders began to identify

ways in which AVASD could move forward. AVASD has a strong, collaborative,

professional development foundation on which to build as RtI is implemented.

101

Perceptions and Recommendations for Change Process

In this case study, the educational leaders (the superintendent, the special education

director, the curriculum, instruction, and assessment supervisor, and the principal)

recommended common elements for one another and other stakeholders to employ as

each stakeholder transitioned through this policy change. These responses were compiled

and sorted for similar and dissimilar recommendations. The leadership characteristics

began to bubble out of the recommendations from each stakeholder. These common

themes included empowerment, visionary impulses, and collaboration.

Stakeholder perceptions and recommendations for change process.

Virginia Satir (1988) was a family therapist who developed a model of change as she

found that her clients consistently went through similar cycles when something would

happen in their lives, whether it was a birth, death, illness, or other change. During each

interview, I described each part of Satir’s cycle. At the end of the description, I asked the

stakeholder to indicate where he or she thought Apple Valley Area School District was at

the time of the interview in relation to RtI implementation (See Figure 2). The interview

continued as a conversation ensued regarding how AVASD could move through the cycle

efficiently and effectively.

102

Figure 2. Stakeholders’ Identification Within Satir’s Model of Change

Note: SBM indicates school board member’s perception, SUP indicates superintendent’s perception, CIA indicates CIA supervisor’s perception, SED indicates special education director’s perception, PRI indicates principal’s perception, 1st Grade indicates first grade teacher’s perception, SET 1 indicates special educator one’s perception, and SET 2 indicates special educator two’s perception.

When the special education director marked her position (SED) on Satir’s Model

of Change, she shared, “I feel I am in chaos. But if I’m looking at my district as a whole,

the majority of them aren’t even aware that it’s a need because I am not allowed to talk

about RtI.” In contrast, the CIA supervisor clearly indicated that AVASD is in resistance

because “I believe that RtI is viewed as another new initiative and they want to resist

103

change. It’s human nature to resist change, I guess.” Those stakeholders who clustered in

between status quo and resistance (1st Grade, SED, SET 1, SUP, and PRI) felt that there

is a significant amount of misinformation and miscommunication in regard to RtI

throughout the district; therefore, the majority of stakeholders throughout the district need

more accurate information as to how AVASD will implement RtI before there could be

any level of resistance.

Each stakeholder shared how he or she would be propelled to move to the next

phase. All respondents requested more professional development. This professional

development would include developing a shared understanding of the RtI process (SUP,

CIA, SED, and PRI). Each stakeholder also specifically asked for clarification in regard

to the standards that each must follow in order to implement RtI with fidelity and

integrity.

All participants expressed the need for clear communication from one another.

The superintendent wanted to hear more from the classroom teachers; he wanted to learn

what is working currently and what the teachers would like to tackle next. The special

education director would like an opportunity to share her policy implementation plan

with everyone in the district. The curriculum, instruction, and assessment supervisor

would like special educators to take a stronger role in the RtI implementation process.

Both special educators want the central office administrators to articulate clearly how RtI

changes their role in AVASD. The principal, classroom teacher, and school board

member want to learn, from the central office administrators, just what RtI means to

104

AVASD. The superintendent has an accurate reading on his followers:

I think we are deliberate about what we do. . .So I think our teachers trust the administration and know that if they come to us and say, we’re just being overwhelmed right now, that we’re going to regroup, which we did this fall [2008], and say okay we’re going to provide some release time for you to do this, give you an in-service day to do this, etc. We want our teachers to be successful. We want our students to be successful. That’s what we are after here - success.

AVASD stakeholders share the superintendent’s sentiment and concluded that if

professional development is provided and specific standards are shared, they will meet

success.

As a result of this part of the interview, recommendations for RtI implementation

and methods to move through the process of change emerged from the participants’

responses. Additionally, stakeholders identified features that facilitated or impeded the

implementation of RtI and also suggestions for policy change implementation, which

leads into conclusions of the second research question, which I will share in Chapter 5.

The AVASD instructional leaders made it very clear that there is a strong need for

professional development. A professional development plan to inform the stakeholders

about RtI in a supportive manner is necessary. At the conclusion of the interviews, these

leaders began to identify what content of the RtI policy must be shared and designed a

timeline for RtI unveiling and implementation. Based on the remarks from the special

education teachers, the classroom teacher, and the school board member, they value their

leaders who inspire and represent AVASD cohesively. The participants also shared a

consensus that they are engaged most in a change when their opinions are valued and

when they have an opportunity to share knowledge, collaborate, and walk away with new

105

knowledge and ideas. Special Educator 2 was least willing to exploit knowledge, to use

her new knowledge to continue to move AVASD through the cycle of change. The

teachers expressed a desire to be stimulated intellectually through collaborative

professional development opportunities. However, the school board member had no

desire for this intellectual stimulation. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table

3 and integrated into the interpretation and conclusion section of Chapter V.

Table 3. Recommendations from Stakeholders to Facilitate Movement Through the Change Process

SuggestionSchool Board

Member

Super-intendent

CIA Supervisor

Special Education Director

Principal First Grade Teacher

Special Education Teacher 1

Special Education Teacher 2

Professional Development * * * * * * * *Knowledge

Sharing * o o o o * * *

Collaboration - * * o * * * *Knowledge

Creating o o o * o * * *Knowledge Exploiting * o * o o * * o

Group Representation * - - * * * * -

Inspirational * * * o * * * *Intellectual Stimulation - - * o o * - -

Empowerment* o o - * o o *

Specifies Standard * * * * * * * *

Note: * indicates complete suggestion, o indicates partial suggestion, - indicates limited suggestion

106

Summary

Chapter IV provided the findings from this study. The three broad themes were

presented as policy perceptions, policy implementation, and perceptions and

recommendations for change process. The analysis of the stakeholders’ experiences and

perceptions provided the basis for these themes. In addition, factors that facilitated or

impeded the implementation of RtI as well as suggestions for improvement were

identified. The perceptions, factors, and suggestions are integrated into the interpretation,

conclusions, and implications for practice and further research in Chapter V.

107

Chapter V

Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents the interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations from

this exploratory case study. Drawing from the data in Chapter IV, Chapter V presents the

implications of RtI through the lens of stakeholder theory. I broadly concluded that there

are RtI implications within stakeholder theory. I share the interpretation of findings and

that there are three major conclusions that emerged from the data; I also present a set of

recommendations for schools and school systems implementing RtI. In Chapter V, I bring

these conclusions together to aggregate this data and to show how it fits into the existing

research on educational policy implementation. Related training, essential personnel

required, and recommendations for further research also are discussed.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of multiple

stakeholders related to the transitions during the implementation of a new policy change.

As indicated in Table 3, findings from the study led to three major conclusions. In order

for a collaborative district to move effectively and efficiently through the process of

change, stakeholders need to: (a) clearly define the policy implementation standards, (b)

embrace a professional development system which includes opportunities for knowledge

creating, knowledge sharing, knowledge exploiting, and innovation through clear

communication, and (c) inspire one another through actions and words.

108

Table 3. Recommendations from Stakeholders to Facilitate Movement Through the

Change Process

SuggestionSchool Board

Member

Super-intendent

CIA Supervisor

Special Education Director

Principal First Grade Teacher

Special Education Teacher 1

Special Education Teacher 2

Professional Development * * * * * * * *Knowledge

Sharing * o o o o * * *

Collaboration - * * o * * * *Knowledge

Creating o o o * o * * *Knowledge Exploiting * o * o o * * o

Group Representation * - - * * * * -

Inspirational * * * o * * * *Intellectual Stimulation - - * o o * - -

Empowerment* o o - * o o *

Specifies Standard * * * * * * * *

Note: * indicates complete suggestion, o indicates partial suggestion, - indicates limited suggestion

The first conclusion drawn from the results is that operationalizing a RtI policy is

facilitated by leaders attending to the legislation, the stakeholders, and the district’s

resources. The special education director approaches leadership through a

transformational and transactional lens - she emphasizes emotions and values in her daily

work (Leithwood, 2001), yet establishes clear standards for other stakeholders to follow

(Bass, 2000). By using leadership behaviors from both transactional and

109

transformational leadership styles, she shares in the fundamental aim to foster capacity

development and higher levels of personal commitment to organizational goals on the

part of the leaders’ colleagues (Bryant, 2003). This common goal is achieved through a

cyclical process of knowledge creating, collaboration, knowledge sharing, and

professional development (Bryant, 2003). In my research, I found that this cyclical

process was not as clear as Bryant (2003) suggested. Consequently, I adapted my

Organizational Change Theoretical Framework (See Figure 3).

My primary changes include collapsing Bryant’s (2003) multi-level model of

organizational change into a single cycle which is embraced by an empowered,

collaborative group of stakeholders (See large box in Figure 3). After I concluded my

interviews, I realized that AVASD encapsulates transformational and transactional

leadership practices at multiple levels. All stakeholders shared experiences where their

opinions were valued, where they shared new knowledge, and where they had

constructive opportunities to share what they knew and were granted permission to try

innovative practices.

110

Figure 3. Organizational Change Theoretical Framework - Revised.

Leithwood (2001) recommends that transformational leadership practices may be

distributed widely throughout the institution so there is no need to view this as a “great

man” orientation to leadership. Power is shared by AVASD stakeholders by way of those

who inspire, demonstrate commitment, and share a collective mastery of skills to achieve

the goals. All stakeholders who participated in this study shared that AVASD had

multiple stakeholders who inspired and shared their commitment consistently. The

interviews indicated that stakeholders knew when and how to rely on these stakeholders

when the district went through a change. The collaborative, professional learning

community already has been established in AVASD. Therefore, the stakeholders

suggested that the cycle of professional development needed to be seamless as knowledge

is created and shared in order to further the development of innovative ideas to exploit

even more knowledge regarding the RtI policy implications.

A second conclusion is that there needs to be a system of clear communication

111

among all stakeholders. As Bryant (2003) found, a leader with transactional leadership

characteristics will be a critical asset for this communication to take place. This

communicative professional development cycle is the key element to move the AVASD

through the process of change as they begin to embrace RtI. In support of Flanagan and

Thompson (1993), each stakeholder requested clear communication of the specific

standards RtI would require for each member of AVASD. Each stakeholder wants to

know what his or her responsibilities include, how he or she will be trained to carry out

these responsibilities, and how he or she will be supported in this endeavor of new policy

implementation. Even though the superintendent identified that RtI is a special education

responsibility, all other stakeholders identified RtI implementation as a shared

responsibility throughout AVASD. Consequently, I concluded that once RtI policy is

defined for AVASD, multiple stakeholders will share the responsibility for

implementation. Those who have more knowledge will be able to propel the strongest

resistors into chaos by sharing this knowledge in an inspirational way, using a peer

mentoring approach. The special education director recommended this strategy:

The classroom teachers and principals first of all need an overview of what each of those three levels look like. The intent of them, what the interventions look like, if you’re going to increase intensity and frequency what does that look like, how would that be done within the general education setting? And then you would need your parents trained as well if you’re going to utilize those teachers, your specialists, etc. So you need a large pool of people with everybody speaking the same language. These stakeholders need a full understanding of the responsibility of their general educator to not teach to the middle child which seems common sense, however it’s not always. So we need some really good training on differentiating instruction to give them the background knowledge and understanding to be able to carry this out.

112

According to Tucker (2004), transformational leaders focus on change, progress,

and development. They emphasize the need for understanding change as a process in

order to engage in a successful series of transitions during the period of change. The

special education director balances these transformational leadership characteristics with

the transactional approach of sharing the same message, the same set of RtI standards,

with all stakeholders. She provides change and movement in AVASD by providing a

vision for change. She was the only stakeholder who could capture this vision throughout

her interview. The special education director established clear goals and has the capacity

to stand back from everyday activities and see the processes of change over the long term

(Covey, 1991).

The third conclusion from this study is that the all stakeholders need to take

responsibility to continue to nurture the inspirational culture that has evolved throughout

AVASD. Based on the various changes that AVASD already has undergone in recent

times, they created a supportive culture, a collaborative professional learning community.

AVASD already has addressed two of the three areas in which leaders influence

organizational culture (Tucker & Russell, 2004): the culture among the people of the

organization and the culture beyond the people of the organization. However, Tucker and

Russell’s third prong needs further development: the internal mindset of people within the

organization. This transformational energy is present in AVASD, and it has the potential

to lead the stakeholders to greater effectiveness as they strive to reach personal as well as

113

institutional goals (Flanagan & Thompson, 1993).

In most cases of school improvement, school districts need to transition from one

modus operandi to another. Change involves the unmaking of policy and procedures in

order to remake them anew. Bass (1999) concludes that organizations that are ready, able,

and willing to change are more transformational than transactional in terms of leadership

styles; they have stakeholders who are willing and able to inspire one another, such as

those in AVASD. Recommendations based on the conclusions of this study are discussed

in the following section.

Conclusions of RtI implications through the lens of stakeholder theory.

Within my framework, adapted from Bryant (2003), collaboration plays a critical

role in policy implementation within stakeholder theory. When special educators and

general educators collaborate, only then can it be ensured that no child will be left

behind. In order to develop more responsive classrooms, staff developers must focus

learning on teacher responsiveness growth. It is critical to have structures that support

reflection, action, and change with the IDEIA mandates (Marten & Spielman, 2005).

Therefore, reflective practice is the professional development technique that best could

enhance teachers’ ability to implement evidence-based interventions and document

student responsiveness to these interventions. It has been over thirty years since the

original special education legislation was passed (Schon, 1983). Despite the fact that a

whole new generation of teachers has been trained in that framework, parents of students

with disabilities still are hearing the same message, that general education teachers are

114

not ready. It is time for general educators to take action and engage in instructional

practices that are effective for students with disabilities.

A rich conception of the target of policy demands an equally rich conception of

the instrument designed to affect classroom life. While it is tempting to treat policy as a

formal statement of intentions, for example a page in the district policy handbook or the

document setting forth the state’s curricular expectations, doing so does not take into

account the enduring tension between intention and action that marks all policy making

(Elmore & Sykes, 1992). A broader view conceives of policy as a “purposeful course of

action by individuals at higher levels in the system designed to guide, direct, or support

actions at lower levels of the system across settings and across time” (Knapp, 1995, p. 2).

The scope of this conception includes intentions and actions - what policy makers say and

what they do.

The potential impact that RtI can have on the education of all children, the roles

of special educators, the roles of general educators, and the United States’ education

system is significant. However, as I stand at the crossroads of IDEIA’s most recent

reauthorization, it is time to take advantage of this synchronicity and strengthen the

public education system. Using current researchers and field experts, and with the

collaborative efforts of professional associations to inform our legislators, change may

happen. In order to ensure that all children meet success during their public education, I

must begin to consider all of the critical stakeholders within the RtI system and the

implications of their decision-making process.

115

RtI should be viewed as a school-wide initiative, with special educators and

general educators working together under the effective leadership of knowledgeable

instructional leaders. RtI may provide diagnostic information to promote early

intervention and possibly reduce the impact of a disability on a student’s academic

progress. RtI should include a multi-tiered prevention system with at least three tiers. The

first tier would include primary preventative interventions in general education. The

second tier would include secondary preventative interventions, which are more intensive

than general education, but less intensive than special education. The third tier would

include tertiary preventative interventions, which would be highly specialized services

delivered within special education. Special education may be re-characterized as an

individualized, data-based, recursive instructional system. RtI should include a universal

screening process within Tier One to monitor short-term progress, inform instruction, and

evaluate intervention effectiveness. Data collected within tiers one and two will be used

to help determine special education qualification. RtI may not delay the referral of a

student who is suspected of having a disability for comprehensive evaluation.

In order for RtI to employ general educators as the primary interveners, critical

decisions must be made in the best interest of all stakeholders. General and special

educators may serve as members of the problem-solving teams. RtI requires a refined

knowledge for all general and special educators in all three tiers. This refined

knowledge, i.e. data collection, data analysis, intervention design, intervention

monitoring, and intervention evaluation, must be supported through ongoing professional

116

development to ensure fidelity and integrity. RtI will require more financial support to

close the gap between general and special education; consequently, local and state

government agencies are a critical part of the decision-making process. RtI will need the

government to ensure that sufficient resources are available to offset a substantial amount

of expenditures that will be incurred during the transition and implementation phases.

Recent educational legislation, IDEIA, has mandated that schools use a more

holistic approach to support at-risk students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The emphasis on

identifying an instructional match has found individual schools and districts investigating

ways to implement this policy change, RtI, in the most unobtrusive, successful manner.

Experts postulate that if children with a disability had been taught more appropriately and

received early intervention services within their general education classroom, many

would not have been labeled as learning disabled (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Mock,

Morgan, & Young, 2003; Harry & Klingner, 2007; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). IDEIA adds

the critical steps to safeguard against some of this prior misdiagnosis.

The proposed RtI model, which originated in the 1982 National Research Council

study (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), proposed that the validity of a special education

classification be judged according to three criteria. “The first criterion is whether the

quality of the general education program is such that adequate learning might be

expected. The second consideration is whether the special education program is of

sufficient value to improve student outcomes and thereby justify the classification. The

third criterion is whether the assessment process used for identification is accurate and

117

meaningful” (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p. 138). Using the RtI identification procedures,

low achievers would be identified as quickly as possible and provided intensive research-

based instruction from quality professionals.

In order to make change happen, researchers, teachers, administrators, teacher

educators, parents, and policy makers should collaborate. These stakeholders need to

push for more flexibility within the testing of students, yet not loosen the rules too much.

Consequently, we will move beyond just special education identification with two

separate camps of experts, special educators and general educators. Rather, it is time to

integrate best practices for all children. Our public education system is responsible for

educating all children.

Key Findings

My conceptual framework incorporated principles of stakeholder theory,

organizational change, the process of individual change, leadership theory, and policy

implementation. Applying this multifaceted framework in a case study, I was able to

identify the critical roles the stakeholders engaged in implementing an educational policy.

Consequently, this study extends Brazer and Peters’ (2007) research by including an

analysis of multiple stakeholders’ modes of policy implementation during critical

transitions within an educational organization.

Successful new policy implementation relies on the stakeholders’ expertise to

understand their role and the implications of the specific education policy. Based on

previous experience with policy change, the stakeholders in this study focused on how

118

AVASD can expedite change yet ensure these changes are implemented with fidelity,

integrity, and professionalism.

Every stakeholder whole-heartedly agreed that AVASD must implement some

form of professional development throughout the entire district in order to introduce RtI,

clarify any misconceptions, describe AVASD’s interpretation of the RtI legislation, and

share the short and long range plans for implementation. The stakeholders’

recommendations for professional development supports Bryant’s (2003) and Kotter’s

(2001) findings that in order to lead an institution through change constructively, a leader,

such as the superintendent, begins by setting a direction through professional

development at the same time that strategies for implementing the policy are designed.

Even though there was consensus on the need for future professional development to

implement RtI successfully, the stakeholders’ beliefs varied in how professional

development should be delivered.

As a listener, a conscious listener, each stakeholder inspired me. They all

shared the desire to grow as professionals and to ensure that AVASD is a successful place

for teachers and students. Each stakeholder embraced the desire to further their

knowledge, to collaborate with one another, to build upon what they already know, and to

develop effective instructional practices. I concluded that these stakeholders, no matter

which lens they look through as they begin to implement RtI, will benefit from a clearly

developed and well-articulated professional development plan.

As a result of this newfound need for further professional development, I

119

revisited my Organizational Change Theoretical Framework. Earlier in my study, when I

reflected on my review of literature but before I collected data, I believed that each

stakeholder needed to go through a similar professional development cycle in order to

balance the amount and type of RtI information each stakeholder would receive in turn.

However, as a result of the data collected, I believe the level of inspiration delivered by

the administrative leaders and the degree to which followers feel empowered has a

stronger influence on the level of success when going through change than I originally

thought.

Motivation can be as simple as being a listener or as complex as developing

an effective timeline for new policy implementation. All three teachers identified a need

to be heard not just by their principal, but also by all other stakeholders. The teachers

actually highlighted the principal’s strength in listening as a recommendation for all four

other stakeholders to try to emulate in order to truly move AVASD into RtI

implementation. Active listening is a motivator. The teachers appreciated not only being

heard, but also being represented. Even though the teachers were unable to articulate the

type of leadership style they wanted from their principal (transformational or

transactional), they most often identified the characteristics of a transformational leader.

These characteristics included leading change, creating processes for policy

implementation, and furthering professional development opportunities (Tucker, 2004).

Transformational leaders use motivation to encourage innovation, whereas

transactional leaders over emphasize the details and goals of the policy (Bryant, 2003;

120

Kotter, 2001). Generally, this interchange between two leadership styles promotes higher

levels of knowledge creation; in return, the institution benefits from higher levels of

performance (Bryant, 2003). Consequently, differences in knowledge processes within

the institution require emphasis from different styles of leadership. Leaders need to

empower all stakeholders so one group does not feel powerless during the unsettling

period of change. AVASD teachers want to be empowered.

Effective leaders also must be visionary leaders. The leaders of AVASD need

to develop a cohesive RtI policy implementation timeline. This implementation timeline

will serve AVASD stakeholders well if it outlines who is responsible for implementation,

what RtI will look like in AVASD, how RtI will be implemented in AVASD, and when

each implementation phase will begin. The leaders also should tap into those individuals

who have the ability to be courageous followers and empower their peers and colleagues

to develop a better understanding of best instructional practices (Chaleff, 2003). The best

instructional practices will serve as a foundation for the various interventions which need

to be designed. It is apparent to me that AVASD has a rich resource of people,

knowledgeable people, who can collaborate to share, create, and exploit knowledge.

Empowerment will propel AVASD through this process of change as education leaders

continue to support their courageous followers and courageous followers ensure that all

at-risk students meet success.

The special education director is most knowledgeable about RtI, has inspired

many other teachers with her recent practical experiences, and believes in collaboration

121

from all stakeholders. Even though the special education director did not identify

empowerment, per se, as a necessary element to implement a policy change successfully,

she demonstrates empowerment in her day-to-day interactions with colleagues. She

identified teachers as her colleagues and peer leaders. In fact she captured this well

during the interview:

I’m great if there are a room of 39 educators all of us working together to do something. I’m not the type of person that has to learn things or has to be the one to understand everything. If you know how to make my job easier and you know how to streamline what I need to do you just tell me and I’ll do it. If you can show me that you’ve had success I’m okay with adopting what you tell me and doing it. . . It’s what it should be.

The special education director demonstrates the critical leadership qualities necessary to

structure a positive culture of change as AVASD undergoes this policy shift.

Recommendations

School districts are faced with the challenge of implementing new policies in order

to ensure that all students have opportunities for success through an instructional match

in every classroom. In order to adopt a new policy successfully, the district’s

stakeholders must plan for this change strategically. It is necessary to define change as a

process (Fullan, 2007). Fullan found that a strong leader’s goals are not to innovate the

most, nor is it enough to be the leader who has the best ideas, and that resistance is

necessary to make change happen. Stakeholders are more likely to learn something from

people who disagree with them than they are from people who agree. People resist for

what they view as good reasons; they may see alternatives that others never conceived

(Satir, 1988). It is necessary to re-culture, to transform the culture (Rosenfield &

122

Gravois, 1996). Schon (1983) recommends that leaders use reflective practice from

feedback in order to transform their institutions. The conclusions and recommendations

from this study can help other schools and districts when they attempt to implement RtI

or similar policies.

Recommendations for school system professional development.

Implementing RtI requires that all stakeholders have a clear and shared

understanding of its purpose and implementation practices. School teams must receive

ongoing support and professional development about the policy and special education

identification process. Recommendations for specific areas of professional development

and training related to RtI implementation include the following:

Include all stakeholders. Their knowledge of RtI, classroom instruction, student

needs, and professional development in general would add to the consistency and

cohesiveness warranted when such a change in policy is introduced. If a stakeholder’s

perspective is not heard, their voice is lost, and the empowerment vanishes. Each

stakeholder has something critical to share, whether it is an instructional experience with

a student or a policy interpretation from the government. It is not possible for one

stakeholder to have expertise in all areas of instruction, student needs, and RtI policy.

Training should include attention to differences between the purpose of RtI and

its implementation practices. Those instructional leaders who design the professional

development training must articulate clearly how RtI will look in one year, three years,

and five years. The training also must include explicit descriptions of accountability. The

123

accountability includes progress monitoring of students and instructional strategy training

for teachers and the people who will execute various tiers of instruction.

Schools implementing RtI should identify a universal description of the RtI

policy which clearly identifies how RtI will work in AVASD. AVASD should begin to

investigate RtI models in similar districts to begin to wrap their heads around the possible

methods for implementation. The instructional leaders should not be wedded to adopting

one RtI implementation system, but rather should be allowed to design an RtI model

which best fits AVASD’s students’ and teachers’ needs. AVASD needs to maintain their

desire to ensure that everyone meets success.

Training is required on all aspects of RtI. These aspects include, but are not

limited to: differentiated instruction, co-teaching, progress monitoring, and special

education identification. I found that not all stakeholders share a common understanding

of the implications of differentiated instruction. I recommend that a discussion begin

among general and special education teachers about how they already differentiate

instruction. This discussion, if properly facilitated, can evolve into a discussion about

progress monitoring to determine if an instructional strategy is working and how these

changes in instruction are, in fact, elements of RtI.

Develop a school-based RtI team (administration, general education teachers,

special education teachers, parents, and school psychologist) to promote a service

delivery system which meets the needs of the individual school’s culture. Early in the

process of RtI implementation, parents need to be informed and represented at each

124

school. This representation can be met easily by school-based teams which meet weekly

or bi-weekly to identify what instructional practices are most effective with various

grades of children. These teams also should begin to support an instructional coaching

model and share the various ways to collect data and how to use this data to inform

instruction.

Stakeholders periodically should meet and evaluate the RtI policy

implementation. Discussions at these meetings would allow issues faced by various

stakeholders to surface and allow shared ownership of adjustments or changes that are

needed as RtI implementation progresses. In order to keep everyone honest throughout

the implementation years, as well as to maintain consistency through the various levels in

the district, the district RtI team needs to meet regularly and evaluate the RtI

implementation process without bias. The evaluation can be in the form of a survey that

different individuals complete. These individuals should be representative of each

stakeholder group within AVASD.

Recommendations for essential staff resources.

Results of this study show that many essential staff resources are required under

the umbrella of professional development when implementing a new educational policy.

Recommendations in this area include the following:

The position of the school-based leader should be filled appropriately.

Determining the staff members available to meet the responsibility for successful

implementation is needed. It is recommended that schools and school districts fund a

125

position for the leader who can address the RtI implications at one or more schools.

Schools and school systems should fund a position as an instructional coach to develop

the instructional strategy knowledge of all teachers and ease the challenge of exploiting

new knowledge.

School districts should develop support systems that allow staff members to

attend RtI meetings and should establish and maintain consistent meetings for support,

provide a centralized place or electronic database for stakeholders to leave important and

helpful documents, and ensure that when professional development is warranted, it is

provided in the most supportive manner.

Further Research Related to RtI Implementation and Change Process

Additional research is needed to explore how RtI can be implemented fully in all

districts to meet the needs of all students. This study was conducted when RtI was first

introduced at the state level. Since states soon will require school districts to continue to

work through the RtI implementation process, researchers should continue to investigate

ways to assist these school districts. This study sought to identify the factors that

enhanced the process of change when a rural school district implements a new policy.

Another area in need of further investigation is an analysis of RtI implementation within

a different setting, an urban setting. When special educators and general educators

collaborate, only then can stakeholders ensure that no child will be left behind.

Investigations are needed to address how collaboration can impact many students in

multiple classrooms.

126

In order to develop more responsive classrooms, staff developers should focus

learning on teacher responsiveness growth. Researchers need to identify structures that

support reflection, action, and change with the IDEIA mandates (Marten & Spielman,

2005). Therefore, more investigations are needed to identify reflective practice as a

professional development technique which would enhance teachers’ ability to implement

evidence-based interventions and document student responsiveness to these interventions.

It has been over thirty years since the original special education legislation, a

whole new generation of teachers has been trained, yet parents of students with

disabilities still are hearing the same message, that general education teachers are not

ready. Further research is needed to include parents as critical stakeholders, to invite

parents into the process of change, and to support them as they support their children.

Furthermore, research is needed to provide time for general educators to take action and

engage in effective, instructional practices. This study answered the research questions

and further inquiry in the areas are examined by the research questions which emerged

from this study.

This study was limited to one school within a single school district. Follow-up

research through focus group interviews of stakeholders at several schools would provide

additional insight into the barriers that may prevent a successful policy implementation.

A series of experimental studies should be conducted to compare a group of

stakeholders with specific RtI perceptions with a control group of stakeholders with

similar perceptions who receive professional development. This information would help

127

schools select effective professional development processes. With continued development

of RtI approaches, school staff likely will move to a service delivery system that

integrates special education, general education, and ELL personnel to provided

interventions. It is suggested that research be conducted about the needed factors to

facilitate changes in roles with school personnel involved in implementing RtI

approaches. This would enable schools to prepare and adjust their practice of arranging

staff to meet student needs instead of the current practice of allocating staff by discipline

area.

This study was conducted for less than one school year. A longitudinal study

using case study methodology may provide knowledge about the perceptions of

participants regarding the process of change, professional development, and instructional

practices. This could be done by identifying new stakeholders and developing interview

protocols that elicit participants’ perceptions related to these additions.

If stakeholders listened more often to the voices of other stakeholders, other

leaders, other followers, perhaps we would be more inclined to step away from

mechanical policy implementation as the only way to improve student achievement. If

that were true, perhaps administrators would feel empowered to move from a single

stance of policy implementation to one that considers the unique perspectives of their

own faculty. This is important because, essentially, no school district, school, classroom

or child is exactly like another. Consequently, we have to think about the fact that “good”

teaching of reading, or any other subject, cannot simply be a matter of implementing the

128

“right” policy. The only right way is the one that utilizes the expertise of all stakeholders

to meet the needs of each child through effective professional development practices

which can originate in sound policy implementation.

129

Abbreviations Used

Apple Valley - Apple Valley Area School District

ARC – Association of Retired Citizens

AVASD – Apple Valley Area School District

CEC – Council for Exceptional Children

CIA - Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment

DOE – Department of Education

ELL - English Language Learners

ESEA – Elementary, Secondary Education Act

FAPE – Free Appropriate Education

IDEA – Individuals with Disability Education Act

IDEIA – Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

IRA – International Reading Association

LEA – Local Education Agency

LD – Learning disabilities

NASP – National Association of School Principals

NCLB – No Child Left Behind

NEA – National Education Association

PDE - Pennsylvania Department of Education

RtI – Response to Intervention

130

References

Adams County Economic Development Corporation, 2005. Adams County Profile.

Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.acedc.org/edc_acprofilehtm

Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile

crisis. New York: Longman.

Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school

achievement. Educational Leadership, 44(1), 9-11.

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage:

Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razaveih, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in

education. Belmont, CA: Thompson Higher Education.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership. The

Psychologist-Manager Journal, 3(1), 5-21.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. The Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7(3), 19-24.

Berg, E. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education, Inc.

131

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1997). The micro-political orientation of facilitative school

principals and its effects on teachers’ sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational

Administration, 35(2), 138-164.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education and

introduction to theories and methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the

information economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brause, R. S., & Mayher, J. S. (1991). Search and research: What the inquiring teacher

needs to know. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Brazer, S. D., & Keller, L. R. (2006). A conceptual framework for multiple stakeholder

educational decision making. International Journal of Education Policy &

Leadership 1(3), 1-14.

Brazer, S. D., & Peters, E. E. (2007). Deciding to change: One district’s quest to improve

overall student performance. International Journal of Education Policy &

Leadership 2(5), 1-14.

Bredeson, P. V., & Kose, B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A

study of school superintendent’s instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis

Archives 15(5).

132

Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating,

sharing, and exploiting organizational knowledge. The Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32-44.

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1985). An empirical investigation of the school as a

community. University of Chicago, Department of Education.

Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and public policy: How

governments matter. Journal of Business Ethics 51(1), 141-153.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Canter, A. (2004). A problem-solving model for improving student achievement.

Principal Leadership, 5, 11-15.

Carroll, A. B. (1996). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (3rd

ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.

Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd

ed.). San Franscisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Chrispeels, J. H. (1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting political

climate: The California experience. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3),

453-481.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (Ed.). (1998). The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and

133

contemporary readings. University of Toronto Press.

Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A

commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 331-338.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational

choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.

Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2001). Building shared responsibility for student learning.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2007a). CEC’s Evidence Based Practice Effort. Panel

discussion presented at the Council for Exceptional Children’s Annual Convention,

Louisville, KY.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2007b). Response-to-intervention-the promise and the

peril. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from www.cec.sped.org/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?

SEction=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/C

Council for Exceptional Children. (2006). Identifying learning disabilities. Retrieved

October 21, 2006, from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?

Section=Identifying_Learning_Disabilities&Template=/TaggedPage/

TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=11&ContentID=3543

Covey, S. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

134

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Daresh, J. C., Ganter, M. W., Dunlap, K., & Hviszdak, M. (2000). Words from ‘the

trenches’: Principals’ perspectives on effective school leadership characteristics.

Journal of School Leadership, 10, 69-83.

Delamont, S. (2002). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls, and

perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Denison, D. R. (Ed.), (2001). Managing organizational change in transition economies.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:

Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1),

65-91.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1998). Redefining the corporation in The Corporation

and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary, edited by: M. B. E. Clarkson.

University of Toronto Press.

Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York:

Random House.

Elmore, R. P. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.

135

Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.

Englert, K., Fries, D., Martin-Glenn, M., & Douglas, B. (2007). Accountability systems:

A comparative analysis of superintendent, principal, and teacher perceptions.

International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership 2(4), 1-14.

Evan, W., & Freeman, R. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation:

Kantian Capitalism in Ethical Theory and Business. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice

Hall.

Fergus, M. (2007). Federal law permits identification by RtI. Retrieved February 21,

2007, from http://educate.missouri.edu/newlsetter/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php?

p2_articleid=81

Firestone, W. A., & Fairman, J. C. (1998). The district role in state assessment policy: An

exploratory study. Rutgers Graduate School of Education. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Flanagan, H., & Thompson, D. (1993). Leadership: The swing of the pendulum.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14, 9-15.

Fletcher, J. M. (1995). Diagnostic utility of intelligence testing and the discrepancy

model for children with learning disabilities: Historical perspectives and current

research. IQ Testing and Educational Decision Making Workshop, Washington, D. C.

136

Fowler, F. C. (2001). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Frederick, W. C. (1992). Social issues in management: Coming of age or prematurely

gray? Paper presented to the doctoral consortium of the social issues in management

division. The Academy of Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and

how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 92-99.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003a). Responsiveness-to-

intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities

construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.

Fuhrman, S. (2007, February). Invited address at 58th Convention of the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York City.

Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. H. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state

education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College

137

Press.

Fullan, M. (2007). Introduction. In Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp.

xvii-xix). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Gaetano, C. (2006, August 31). General education teachers face special education

realities. Sentinel. Phoenix, AZ, p.1

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (1989). Educational research. (7th ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Gerber, M. M. (2003a). Differences in teachers' responsiveness to instruction. Kansas

City, MO. Retrieved date, year, from http://www.ncrld.org/symposium2003/gerber/

gerber3.html

Gerber, M. M. (2003b). The economics of RtI at scale. Responsiveness to Intervention

Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved date, year, from http://www.ncrld.org/

symposium2003/gerber/gerber4.html

Gettysburg Adams Chamber of Commerce. (2006). Adams County Overview. Retrieved

January 20, 2009, from http://www.gettysburg-chamber.org/adams.html

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2007). Debunking a special education myth. Education

Next, 2, March 20, 2007.

Goertz, M. (2000). Local accountability: The role of the district in monitoring policy,

138

practice and achievement. CPRE, University of Pennsylvania and University of

Michigan; the RAND Corporation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Goodnough, K. (2001). Enhancing professional knowledge: A case study of an

elementary teacher. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(2), 218-236.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2001). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives.

Office of Special Education Program's Learning Disability Summit Conference,

Washington, D. C.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,

33(3), 329-351.

Hallinger, P. (2000). A review of two decades of research on the principalship using the

principal instructional management rating scale. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school

effectiveness: A review of empirical research. Educational Administration Quarterly,

32(1), 27-31.

139

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of

principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.

Harrington, L. K. (1996). Ethics and public policy analysis: Stakeholders’ interests and

regulatory policy. Journal of Business Ethics 15(4), 373-382.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2007). Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership,

64(5), 16-21.

Heller, M. F., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for

change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-86.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and

practice (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to content analysis. Qualitative

Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change:

The contribution of middle managers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1),

31-69.

International Reading Association. (2005). IDEA legislation adds response to intervention

component. Reading Today, 22(6), 22.

Jarvis, W. (1993). Four quadrant leadership staff training. NSW, Australia: Lane Cove.

140

Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An

organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397-414.

Jones, T. M., & Wicks, C. A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory, Academy of

Management Review 24, 206-221.

Josey, M. (2007, March 3). Critics say law fails disabled kids. News-Record, Trenton, NJ.

p. 1

Kant, I. (1959). The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. (L. W. Beck, Trans.)

(1959). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1785.)

Kirp, D., & Cyrus, E. D. (1995). The aspirations of systemic reform meet the realities of

localism. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 589-612.

Klingner, J.K., & Edwards, P.A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to

intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108-117.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science

classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning.

Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.

Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 85-96.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

141

Leithwood, K. A. (2007). Transformation school leadership in a transactional policy

world. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 183-196). San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability polices.

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-235.

Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership.

In J. Murphy and K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational

administration (2nd ed.) (pp. 45-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Louis, K. S. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In J. Murphy and K. S. Louis

(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed.) (pp. 251-276).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting

schools: “Testing” the “theory of action,” Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 24(2), 113-132.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to

establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L.

Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research

142

to practice (pp. 437-447). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for

decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 18(3), 187-200.

Marten, S., & Spielman, J. (2005). Modified descriptive review as a tool for reflection

and professional inquiry. Language Arts, 82(6), 452-461.

Massell, D., & Goertz, M. (1999). Local strategies for building capacity: The district role

in supporting instructional reform. CPRE: University of Michigan and University of

Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

McAllaster, C. M. (2004). The 5 P’s of change: Leading change by effectively utilizing

leverage points within an organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 318-328.

Mellard, D. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: Implementation in schools. Retrieved

February 21, 2007, from http://www.schwablearning.org/print_resources.asp?

type=article&r=1057%20&propref

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2008). Social justice research: The power to reveal hidden agendas.

143

Educational Researcher, 37(2) 101-105.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlsrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through

the wilds of strategic management. New York: Free Press.

Moyston, B. (1985). The content analysis of qualitative research: A dynamic approach. In

The Research Interview (pp. 115-145). London: Academic Press.

Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997). Thinking creatively at

work: Organization influences on creative problem solving. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 31, 7-17.

Newman, F., & Wehlage, G. H. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the

public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; Reston,

VA: National Association for Secondary School Principals.

Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Pascale, R., Millemann, M., & Gioja, L. (2000). Surfing the edge of chaos. New York:

Crown Business.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

144

Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

Portin, P. S., & Shen, J. (1998). The changing principalship: Its current status, variability,

and impact. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 93-113.

Prestine, N. (1999). Enabler or restrainer? Factors that determine administrator responses

to systematic change initiatives. Unpublished manuscript.

Putnam, R. D., & Goss, K. A. (2002). Introduction. In R. D. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies

in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 3-19). Oxford

University Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of

special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398.

Rosenblum, S., Louis, K. S., Rossmiller, R. A. (1994). School leadership and teacher

quality of work life in restructuring schools. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.),

Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams:

Collaborating for change. New York: Guilford Press.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New

145

York: Longman.

Rosenthal, S. J., Schultz, F. C., & Hekman, D. R. (2006). Stakeholder theory and

managerial decision-making: Constraints and implications of balancing stakeholder

interests. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 285-301.

Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In S. H. Fuhrman and

J. O’Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2(181), 197.

Sack-Min, J. (2007). The issues of IDEA. American School Board Journal, 193(6),

March 23, 2007.

Samuels, C. (2006a, November 8). Education department backs research plans for RTI

method. Education Week.

Samuels, C. (2006b, November 29). Special education directors hope to sway federal

policy. Education Week.

Sarason, S. B., & Lorentz, E. M. (1998). Crossing boundaries: Collaboration,

coordination, and the redefinition of resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Satir, V. (1988). The new people-making. Mountain View, CA: Science and Behavior

146

Books.

Schaeffer, L. (2002). The leadership journey. Harvard Business Review. 42-47.

Schaeffer, N. C., & Maynard, D. W. (2002). Standardization and interaction in the survey

interview. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research

(p. 592). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Scharrer, G. (2007, March 18). Lawmakers pressed to boost special education. Houston

Chronicle, TX, p. 3.

Schein, E. H. (1995). Leadership and organizational culture. In F. Hesselbein et al. The

Leader of the Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process

for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 28-37.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New

York: Basic Books.

Shannon, P. (2008). A response to “social justice research.” Educational Researcher,

37(2) 101-105.

Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., Schneider, A. E., Marchione, K. E.,

Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Pugh, K. R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Persistence of

dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104(6),

147

1351-1359.

Southworth, B. (1998). Leading improving primary schools. London: Falmer Press.

Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state

instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 6-87.

Spillane, J. P. (1997). A cognitive perspective on the LEA’s roles in implementing

instructional policy. Education, 20. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school

district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational

Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.

Spillane, J. P. (2000). District leaders’ perceptions of teacher learning. Philadelphia, PA:

Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Spillane, J. P. (2002). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and

the reformer of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2) 21-39.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership

practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.

Spillane, J. P. & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity:

The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Education

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.

148

Spillane, J. P., Thompson, C. L., Lubienski, C., Jita, L., & Reimann, C. B. (1995). The

local government policy system affecting mathematics and science education in

Michigan: Lessons from nine school districts. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University, Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative Policy and Program Review

Component.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 350-361.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research and analysis types and software tools. New York:

Falmer Press.

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council of Administrators of

Special Education, Council for Exceptional Children, Council for Learning

Disabilities, Division for Learning Disabilities, & International Dyslexia Association,

et al. (2006). New roles in response to intervention: Creating success for schools and

children.

Thurows, L. (2005). Fortune favors the bold: What we must do to build a new and lasting

global prosperity. New York: Harper Collins.

Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.

149

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities’ inadequate response

to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research

& Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

Vroom, V. & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. London: University of

Pittsburgh Press.

Walser, N. (2007). Response to intervention. Harvard Education Letter, 23(1), 1-3.

Wijnberg, N. M. (2000). Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between

ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics 25(3), 329-342.

Winn, M. I., & Keller, L. R. (2001). A modeling methodology for multi-objective multi-

stakeholder decisions: Implications for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10,

166-181.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Zuckerbrod, N. (2007, February 10). Law may accommodate learning disabled. San

Francisco Gate, p. 4

150

Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Stakeholders

151

Before beginning the actual interview, I followed the steps listed below:

Explain the nature of the research, give the participant the one-page summary, and read

the research question aloud.

Read the consent form aloud to the participant. Ask if the participant had any questions.

Ask participant if he or she is willing to sign the consent form

Provided a copy of the consent form at the end of the interview.

Ask if the participant is willing to have the interview taped. Assure the participant that

the recording will not be reviewed by anyone but myself and a transcriptionist and

that anonymity will be preserved through the use of pseudonyms.

If there are anonymity concerns, I will elaborate further that no one in the district will

receive any information that would allow for the identification of an individual. I am

far more likely to report general trends than individual views.

Ask if the participant has any questions before I begin.

Interview Questions:

Please state the following:

Your position in the school district

Your work site

Your years of experience in education in this district

The type of teaching certifications you currently hold

Tell me how the special education identification process works. What’s that like for you?

152

How do children get identified for special education?

Lately there’s been a lot of talk about RtI - I am just curious about your understanding

about that. What do you know about RtI?

Generally a district likes to involve different stakeholders like teachers, principals, school

board members, central office administrators - Have you been a part of that process

as a stakeholder? What has that been like for you? What does your role look like?

Does that work for you?

How successful do you think RtI will be in Apple Valley Area School District? Why do

you think that?

Do you think in AVASD there is a need to adopt RtI? If AVASD rolls out RtI, what do

you think the problems are going to be? Do you think there will be any particular

obstacles? For groups? Procedures? Implementation?

If they encounter them, how do you think AVASD could manage these problems or

remove them?

Do you think AVASD will be successful managing RtI? Why or why not?

Let’s assume that AVASD isn’t successful, what does that mean? If they are successful,

what do you think that means?

Here is a model (See Figure 4) of how an organization might go about developing and

implementing a new policy. Here is the process developed by Virginia Satir. She was

a family therapist and she developed this model of change years ago when she was

finding that her clients always went through this same cycle when something would

153

happen in their lives, whether it was a birth or death or illness or changes or

whatever. I’m going to describe each part of this cycle starting at the top and go

clockwise. After I’m done I’d like you to tell me where you think Apple Valley Area

School District is right now and talk about how we could move to the next phase.

Status quo is when you’re pretty content with wherever you are and things are just

kind of moving along smoothly. Then a policy, such as RtI, might be introduced

here. When the policy is first introduced, people might resist it. There are probably

some colleagues in this building who are bigger resistors than others and they resist

change for lots of different reasons. They don’t want to change, they don’t

understand why they need to do it, it is uncomfortable, it is the unknown, but

resistance happens. Resistance looks very different for lots of different people. Then

after we are done resisting we go into a period of chaos, and chaos is when this new

information’s coming in, and if you think about just how you understand things, you

are trying to connect the unknown or the new with the known. And so you are trying

to embrace this new initiative but lots of different things are happening; initiatives

don’t seem to be aligned. Lots of different things could be happening just to cause

chaos. So we want to leave chaos and we want to get to integration. Integration is the

phase where RtI is implemented and it is implemented well. This new policy is

integrated with integrity and fidelity, our kids’ needs are being met, success is there,

and we are going to continue integrating until we come back to status quo again and

then we will just be at status quo until something else comes down the pike, but we

154

would come full circle. Does this make sense?

Status Quo - this is where AVASD is now, in regard to the special education identification

process. Given this stage - how do you think AVASD engages people, what do you

think needs to happen at this stage for RtI to be successful?

Assuming that that takes place - RtI resistance is the next phase - how do you think

AVASD will handle this? What kind of response would teachers, administrators,

school board members have?

Then there is chaos - lots of new ideas are floating around, communication is fast,

planning begins, policies are analyzed. What could AVASD do to manage this chaos?

What resources would you need to manage this phase of chaos?

Integration is when RtI begins to unroll, the implementation begins to happen at all

levels. What do you imagine that will be like for you? What could AVASD do to help

you get there? What is implementation like for you? What do you imagine will help

you?

When the last question has been answered, I explained the following:

The participant will receive a copy of the transcript via email as soon as I can get it

produced. I would like the participant to review the transcript, make any necessary

corrections, and return it to me.

I may ask the participant to have another 45-minute interview at some point in the future.

155

Figure 4. Satir’s Model of Change

156

Appendix B: Observation Review Form

157

Observational Notes

Observational NotesDate: ___________

Participant(s): _______________

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

158

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form

159

Informed Consent Form

DirectionsPlease read this consent form carefully and ask any questions before you decide whether you want to participate in this research study. You are free to ask questions at any time before, during, or after your participation in this research.

Project Title: A Case Study of the Implications of Student Achievement by Instructional Leaders’ Implementation of Response to InterventionPrincipal Investigator: Divonna Stebick Organization: Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, OhioLocation of Study: Apple Valley Area School District Telephone #: 717.630.2977

Purpose of this Research Study:The purpose of this study is to understand the perceptions of multiple stakeholders related to the transitions during the implementation of a new policy change, which includes investigating the following research questions: What is the role of the instructional leader in policy implementation? Which stakeholders influence educational decision making in this district? How does stakeholder influence steer decisions in a specific direction? How does communication about a change decision affect the transition into implementation?

Procedures:You will be asked to:Participate in an interview. These interviews will be conducted in person at a time convenient for both participant and principal investigator.Respond to principal investigator’s questions fully and honestly.Provide any follow-up information requested by the principal investigator. This may require email or phone correspondence. Obtained data and analysis will be shared in a public domain for professional development purposes as the principal investigator seeks to further her understanding of data analysis from colleagues and mentors. Examples of sharing this data in a public domain include, but are not limited to: discussions with peers, mentors, and statisticians; professional conferences and proceedings, and possibly professional journals. During any and all present and future investigations, the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality will be protected at all times.

Possible Risks:The only possible risk is a stir of emotions during the interview as participants design

160

individualized action plans for RtI implementation.

Possible Benefits:The possible benefits include empowering others by sharing the transitions that Apple Valley Area School District uses to implement new federal mandates during a period of change.

Financial Considerations:You will not receive any financial compensation for your participation in this research.

Confidentiality:Although e-mail is not totally secure, my computer has security software and no one else will have access to my computer and/or my e-mail account; it is password protected. In order to protect your confidentiality, I will use pseudonyms for identifying data, places, or subjects. My research data will be retained in a locked file cabinet for seven years, as required by the IRB, and then destroyed.Your identity in this study will be treated as confidential. Results of the study, including all collected data, may be published but will not give your name or include any identifiable references to you. However, any records or data obtained as a result of your participation in this study may be inspected by the persons conducting the study and/or Union Institute and University’s Institutional Review Board, provided that such inspectors are obligated legally to protect any identifiable information from public disclosure, except where disclosure otherwise is required by law or a court of competent jurisdiction. These records will be private in so far as permitted by law.

Termination of Study:You are free to choose whether to participate in this study. You also may choose to withdraw from the study at any time. You will not be penalized or lose any benefits to which you otherwise are entitled if you choose not to participate or choose to withdraw. You will be provided with any significant new findings developed during the course of this study that may relate to or influence your willingness to continue participation. In the event you decide to discontinue your participation in the study, please notify Divonna Stebick, 717.630.2977, [email protected], of your decision so that your participation can be terminated in an orderly fashion. Your participation in the study may be terminated by the investigator without your consent under the following circumstances: the research is terminated, or the sample population must be changed. Divonna Stebick may need to terminate the study without prior notice to, or consent of, the participants in the event of illness or other reasons.All data collected on, about, or by a participant will be destroyed and not used in the data

161

analysis or writing of the findings if the participant withdraws.The types of data collection instruments include interview responses, e-mail messages, transcriptions from phone conversations, or observational notes from meetings.

After the Study is Completed:The principal investigator will provide participants with a copy of the summary of the results of the study via email.

Resources:Any questions you have about the study will be answered by Researcher: Divonna Stebick, 2260 Fox Chase Drive, Hanover, PA 17331, 717.630.2977, [email protected] Advisor: Sean Robinson, 202.544.7771, [email protected] Any questions you may have about your rights as a research subject will be answered by Mary Ginn, Union Institute & University, 1.800.486.3116, ext. 1153In case of the research related emergency call:Researcher: Divonna Stebick, 717.630.2977, [email protected] Advisor: Sean Robinson, 202.544.7771, [email protected]

Subject and Researcher Authorization:I have read and understand this consent form, and I volunteer to participate in this research study. I understand that I will receive a copy of this form. I voluntarily choose to participate, but I understand that my consent does not take away any legal rights in the case of negligence or other legal fault of anyone who is involved in this study. I further understand that nothing in this consent form is intended to replace any applicable federal, state, or local laws.

SignaturesParticipant Name (printed): _______________________________________________________Participant Signature: ____________________________________________________________Date: ________________________________________________________________________

Principal Researcher’s name (printed): ______________________________________________Principal Researcher’s Signature: __________________________________________________Date: ______________________________________________________________

162