One of the critical elements of any RTI program is having in place a set of procedures to ensure that the evidence-based practices used at the various tiers are being implemented with high fidelity.  In the absence of regular checks on fidelity of implementation, we won’t know if the interventions are being taught with integrity.  In order to make sound judgments about a student’s responsiveness to an intervention, we must be assured that the intervention is being taught in a way that is consistent with its initial design. If we don’t know if the intervention is being taught correctly, inappropriate decisions may be made about student performance – i.e., we may attribute poor performance to the student when it may be due primarily to ineffective implementation. A great deal has been written in the professional literature about the importance of doing fidelity checks and ways to do them.

While this attention on fidelity is appropriate, it is not sufficient!  It is equally important to know that interventions are being taught in the right dosage.

At a national education conference I attended recently, there were numerous sessions on RTI and its application (in excess of 20 sessions).  Each of the seven sessions on RTI that I attended was presented by those who were centrally involved in implementing an RTI program at the school level. There were two common threads running through each of these presentations.  First, there was a detailed description of the various components of their RTI system (e.g., how universal screening was conducted – including tools used and mechanics of scoring and interpreting the data, decision rules used to make instructional decisions about students based on screening results, a description of the evidence-based practices used and how their fidelity of implementation was measured and the frequency of doing these checks, and how progress monitoring was conducted).  Second, there was very little, if any, time spent describing the conditions or contextual factors that existed in their schools and/or districts that supported the successful implementation of the RTI program that they were describing. 

When practitioners hear about effective RTI models at conferences or read about their successful implementation in the professional literature, they need to understand the conditions or contextual factors in the school or district in which RTI was successfully implemented as much as they understand the elements or features of the RTI program being implemented. In other words, educational innovations like RTI gain most traction in settings that provide the necessary conditions to support their use. Less successful implementations elsewhere may be caused by an absence of supporting conditions, rather than because of the particular RTI procedures, per se.  If this is the case, we need to spend much more time describing the supporting conditions that exist in a given school or district that enable an RTI program to be successful. 

What does an RTI coach do?  A general definition of coach is someone who facilitates knowledge and skill development in others.  This might be done through traditional professional development workshops, but more likely skill development is embedded in the work of the school.  Much of an RTI coaches’ work is done with teams.  Schools with effective RTI models typically have two types of teams that meet regularly and use data to make important decisions about meeting student needs.  Generally, there is a building team whose mission is to oversee the implementation of RTI across the building.  The make up of this team is representative of the various professional roles in the building.  They spend time reviewing screening data to determine whether the core instruction has been effective and evaluate where intervention resources appear to be most needed.  In addition, building teams may assist grade level/teaching teams in planning more intensive (Tier 3) interventions when students have not responded to the grade level team’s Tier 2 supports.