Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium

December 4-5, 2003 * Kansas City, Missouri

The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas, sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues.

The presenters, discussants, and participants assembled represented the wide diversity of individuals with a vested interest in LD determination issues. Advocates, instructional staff, researchers, and state-level education officials brought their collective and considerable expertise to the discussions.

Don Deshler, NRCLD Co-Director, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning, presented the following closing remarks during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium.

Closing Remarks

Don Deshler, NRCLD, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning

Don Deshler Reflecting back to when I was a graduate student 30 years ago, and I was fortunate enough to have Sam Kirk as a member of my committee, I remember every time I would sit in a meeting with him feeling so very, very dumb. I would listen to him, and I was very impressed and in awe of his wisdom. I saw him being very wise and rather old. So, I thought there was a correlation here and assumed that as I got older, I would get wiser. After sitting through this very stimulating conference for the past two days, I'm starting to feel very dumb again. Maybe it's simply because I'm so overwhelmed at the complexity and magnitude of the challenges before us. By me saying that I'm feeling a little bit dumb, it does not in any way reflect on the marvelous presentations that we have heard. It's just that I'm reminded of Rodell and White, as they were talking about the types of problems that public planners face. They put them in two categories: tame problems and wicked problems. I think we've been talking about some pretty wicked problems the last couple of days.

Let me just share with you my construct of the meeting of the last couple of days. A couple lessons that I think I've learned to share with you:

I've learned how significant it is to have the right people engaged in taking on these extraordinarily complex problems. I think we've all witnessed how special it's been to have policymakers and practitioners and researchers and teacher trainers and so forth within this symposium, and I hope none of us lose the importance of that lesson as we continue down this path of seeking out solutions and try to come to better ways to deal with the problem before us.
Related to that is the fact that I think we've developed a little sense of community, although transitory; we'll all leave soon and go our separate ways. But I have been very energized by the fact that there are some very great minds working very passionately on these very significant issues. I've thought several times over the past couple of days how marvelous it is when we come together in this sense of community, and it's that dynamic that I believe will be required to develop meaningful solutions.

A colleague of ours at the University of Kansas, Steven Maynard-Moody, in public policy, has written several things about the whole notion of implementation, and we've talked about that at several points throughout our deliberations. Let me share with you something that builds on the point that Sheldon just made about the importance of engaging policymakers that Steven puts in a slightly different light. I think it's very germane to the whole notion of RTI and the major paradigm shift that it represents in taking us to a venue of much more complicated implementation from where we were in aptitude-achievement discrepancy because the players were limited. Now the players have expanded. He has this to say:

"Within implementation theory, success and failure are typically defined by the extent of slippage between the intention of top agency officials and front-line implementers. Top agency officials are seen as the empowered decision makers and front-line staffers as rule followers (workers), rule avoiders (shirkers), or rule breakers (saboteurs)."

Okay, so workers, shirkers, and saboteurs out there on the front line.

"Further, implementation researchers note that there has been an erosion in the confidence of our connection between policy making and policy implementation. That is, street-level bureaucrats who are the ultimate carry-outers of policy have such wide and unconstrained discretion that their influence over implementation may trump the authority of their organizational betters. Lipsky described the influence of front-line workers over policy as so pervasive and potent that he declared that street-level bureaucrats are de facto policymakers on par with and perhaps exceeding the influence of elected officials. In this view, there are no implementers, just policymakers at all levels who respond to different contingencies."

I think there are some dynamics like that that we've not even touched upon in our deliberations here but are ones that are very real for us to grapple with as we move down the road.

Another thing that I have learned from so many of the comments that have been made is how challenging this whole notion of change is. So many presenters have addressed that many must be trained or all must be trained, and there's an adaptation of a new set of values that will run a system like this, the need to engage other types of supports within a school setting to create the right kind of environment, for example, a positive behavior support system, and so forth. Given those realities of change, I was reminded of many of the things that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, often referred to as the "Flow Doctor," has written in a best-selling book titled Flow. But in another book of his, called Evolving Self, he talks about technologies that tend to survive and thrive. I think it's fair to say that RTI is indeed a technology. He maintains that the ones that thrive and survive are the ones that:

do more for the customer and client
are easier to use

The combination of those two things make a technology thrive and survive. For example, Windows vs. Dos, or a vacuum cleaner vs. a broom, or an ATM machine vs. a teller, and there's a host of other examples. But I think it's important that, if indeed we want to bring forth technology into the educational environment that transforms at the level that we've been talking about, we need to keep those two dimensions in mind and what's involved in having something that is both powerful and easy to use. It's a tough combination.

Related to that is a fascinating work that has appeared in the business literature in the last several years by Clayton Christianson, on the faculty of the Harvard Business School. His best selling book is titled The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Within this book, he speaks about disruptive technologies. Now, you take a great firm like IBM. They have carved out a clientele. They design products, they price products, and so forth to meet the needs of that clientele. And then there are the little upstarts along the way that see some potential market share out there to carve off, to take away. And so we see these emerge. Well, if the upstarts can come into the marketplace and offer technologies that are simpler, cheaper, and more user-friendly, and accomplish the same goal, they can become a disruptive technology. Oftentimes, the great firms refuse to recognize that, and they dig their heels in, and they define even further, try to rationalize and define even further, what they are doing.

I would argue he has great lessons to teach to all of us as we are going down this road. He has just come out with his sequel book, called The Innovator's Solution. But there are lessons here, I think, to help us understand both those who are resisting RTI and, on the other hand, those who are trying to advocate RTI as a new technology, because he talks about certain criteria that a technology must meet if, indeed, it is to be sufficiently disruptive and to find it's way into the marketplace. While we have a host of very encouraging things going on in RTI, when we stand back from afar, they are at best a spit in the ocean compared to the predominant things going on in schools. So I think it's important for us to understand some of these broader dynamics that help us understand the whole notion of change and adoption and so forth.

Now, if I can just conclude by highlighting what I think are a couple of needs that have struck me. The point has been made on several occasions throughout these two days on the vital nature of leadership, and that leadership has primarily been spoken of at the school level. I would just add that I think leadership is needed in all levels: in the research community, in the policy community, and the practitioner community. A wonderful book by Michael Useem from the Wharton School of Business, Leadership Moment, profiles nine stories of triumph and success in leadership. One is the Apollo 13, and that's one of triumph. Then there's one of Salomon Brothers, in which certain decisions were made along the way by key leaders that totally derailed a movement. So for leadership to be effective, I think it needs to tend to some of the messages that are written in that book. I was very impressed with that as I reviewed it in light of our deliberations here.

Another need that has struck me and has surfaced is the need to work to a common language in taxonomy, just to facilitate our communication. And we've tried to say, "Well, what do we really mean by that tier and that cut score?" It's an evolving, exciting development at this point, but it's logical those questions are there. We need to sharpen our constructs about intervention features, about learning disabilities, about cut scores, and on and on.

Two final needs that I note. One, well I said it's so wonderful to have the representation here. I think it's clear that we need to broaden those at the table. An obvious need is representation from the general education perspective. I think Mike's presentations have underscored the importance of us to tend to and understand even more the dynamics of efficiencies and economies that are operating, because tradeoffs are made and resources are limited. I think we have to have folks who understand change. I think we have to have folks in our midst who are really strong critics of what we're doing, because I think that will sharpen our work and help us move along. The final need is that I think it's imperative for us to avoid closing too soon. On the one hand, I argue for language: We need to have increased and sharpened language and terminology. But the moment we get that, it can tend to put our feet in concrete. So it's an interesting tension there, and I think we need to be careful. You know, it's easy to talk to one another and become so comfortable. A dear colleague of Daryl's and mine was Gordon Alley, and a favorite saying of his was that we have to be careful that we don't feed one another's pathology, and sometimes that can happen.

Let me just conclude by extending, on behalf of the NRCLD staff, a profound thank you, first of all for the good work that you are all doing. It's been so evident throughout this conference. Thank you for so liberally sharing and so openly and honestly sharing and putting yourself on the line for criticism and open dialogue. It's been so refreshing. It's this kind of openness and high-level performance that's needed to help solve these perplexing, wicked problems. Thank you for your passion. I know I speak for Lou, Renee, and NRCLD staff for thanking you for just joining us in this very, very significant effort. I wish you Godspeed on your trip home and safety. Thank you very much.

The symposium was made possible by the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.