As with any change process, the hardest part is to build consensus to ensure that the change is lasting and positive. We took some special steps to ensure that the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) would be successful and that it would not be another flash in the pan.

The first step that we took was to form a leadership/assessment team. Our team consisted of the reading specialist, the special education teacher, the school counselor, our instructional facilitator, and myself, the principal. The purpose of this team was to gather information and data that would lead to an increase in student knowledge and skills. These people were chosen because of their key positions within the school and also their expertise in working with and analyzing student data. Many of these people are well respected among the staff and are looked to as role models in our building. No classroom teachers were chosen simply because their main focus is in the classroom and we did not want to overburden them with other duties that were outside of their classroom. We emphasized to the teachers that we wanted them to continue to meet the needs of students in their own classrooms and not focus on the school as a whole; this was a relief to many of them. After doing a lot research and looking at No Child Left Behind, it became very obvious to us that using an RTI method to improve student performance was the best way to go. Another clincher was the fact that as we delved deeper and deeper into what RTI was and how it had the possibility to really address the individual needs of each student, the staff became more and more excited about the possibilities. In fact, at the end of the school year last spring I proposed that we may want to wait another year to fully implement RTI because I was concerned that we may not have all of our interventions in place, and this suggestion was met with a resounding no; the staff wanted to implement our RTI model in fall and I needed to get out of the way.

I have been asked to write a blog describing our journey as we begin to implement a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) model. First, I would like to tell you a little about myself, our school, and our community. I am in my second year as elementary principal and special education director for Big Horn County School District #4. We are a small rural district in Wyoming and so many people around our district wear multiple hats. This is my fifth year as an administrator; I was an assistant principal at Powell High School for three years prior to taking this position. I also taught high school math for 4 years while earning a master’s degree in educational leadership from the University of Wyoming. Laura Irwin Elementary is a K–4 school with 114 students. The vast majority of our students, about 95%, are Caucasian. Our free and reduced lunch population is right at 50%, but we have a high number of identified special education students, about 26%. We are a Title I targeted school with about 54% of our students qualifying for Title I services. Our community is agrarian based, as the main economy is driven by farming and ranching. We do have a couple of bentonite mines in the area that also contribute to the local economy. Our economy has seen a bit of an upturn with an interest in natural gas and oil in this area, but for the most part it is still a fairly economically deprived area.

It is very cool today to say that you work in a Professional Learning Community (PLC).  The DuFours and their colleagues have energized the nation with their principles and stories of schools that have developed stretch cultures that ensure that all students will learn to high levels.

The DuFours have proven that it can happen.  We can be successful with virtually all students.  So, why aren't we?  I think the answer is in the words Professional…Learning…Community.

Is your PLC actually Professional?  If your school/district buys programs primarily based on which company gives you the most free stuff, then your PLC is not professional.  If your school/district allows its educators to use research-based core curricula and interventions in ways that do not ensure fidelity of implementation, then your PLC is not professional.  If your school/district allows its educators to continue to use instructional strategies that have a proven track record of not working, then your PLC is not professional.