Category:Response to Intervention (RTI)

What is Response to Intervention (RTI)?

"A student may struggle with academic content for a number of different reasons. At those times teachers need to be able to recognize that a student is not performing at the expected level and know how to intervene with strategies to help the student get back on track. Many schools use Response to Intervention (RTI) to monitor student performance and identify needed interventions to improve student learning." - Teach-Now, Module 6, Unit 1, Activity 2

Screening
Universal screening aims to ensure that all students are measured and at-risk students are not overlooked. A screening test that can be conducted by the classroom teacher, rather than an outside professional, is usually the best method for identifying at-risk students because it reduces the level of stress on the students and therefore provides more accurate results. Many schools administer a screening test three times a year, once at the beginning of the, once in the middle of the year, and once at the end of the year. It is important that the same type of testing is used throughout the year, so results can be accurately compared. A variety of test types are available, and many of them focus solely on reading fluency, accuracy, and reading to grade level. There are arguments for using universal screening to identify at-risk students in the areas of writing, math, and behavior. While universal screening does not always identify all at-risk students, it ensures that all students are considered for additional assistance (Hughes).

The screening process is the first step in the RTI framework and is usually divided into two steps: the universal screening assessments and the on-going, progress monitoring. The universal screening works by identifying students who fall below the benchmarks or cut off/cut point scores. These scores run parallel with grade level standards and skills and help teachers not only group students based on their literacy skills and proficiency but also by areas of improvement. This screening process can be viewed as a fork in the road that shepherds students to the types of instruction that will work best for them; students performing above cut scores will move forward with high quality classroom instruction and "best practice" monitoring check-ins, while the students performing below will receive more focused instructions (based on areas of concern from the screening)  coupled with progress monitoring that will determine future steps.

Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring is used to assess student progress or performance in those areas in which they were identified by universal screening as being at-risk for failure (e.g., reading, mathematics, social behavior).It is the method by which teachers or other school personnel determine if students are benefiting appropriately from the typical (e.g., grade level, locally determined, etc.) instructional program, identify students who are not making adequate progress, and help guide the construction of effective intervention programs for students who are not profiting from typical instruction

Additionally, attention should focus on fidelity of implementation and selection of evidence-based tools, with consideration for cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student strengths.

Some issues which may need to be considered include; Goal-Oriented Issues- will the Student Progress monitoring be for an individual student or a whole class, Staff-Oriented Issues - things such as having adequate staffing in terms of numbers, roles, and levels of expertise, Logistical and Administrative Issues - Choose the Student Progress Monitoring tools that are appropriate for your school.

The goal of progress monitoring is to continually assess not only the student but the efficacy of the interventions. Teachers should combine formative assessments (universal screening, formal testing) with summative assessments (small group observations, check-ins, reading conferences, etc.) to gather a larger picture of the student's progress. It is important to be aware of anything that may affect a student's formative assessments like anxiety, mood, exhaustion, etc. These, among others, may affect a student's testing scores and should be considered when using data to make decisions down the road with the RTI tiers and any interventions.

Multi-Level Prevention System
There are several levels that form part of the RTI prevention matrix. It appears that in reality, schools and districts vary widely in the number of tiers they include in their RTI frameworks. But, regardless of the number of tiers of intervention a school or district implements, each should be classified under one of the three levels of prevention: primary,secondary, or tertiary, in this framework. This allows for a common understanding across schools, districts, and states; essential when students move from one to another. In choosing the number of tiers for the RTI model, practitioners should recognize that increasing the number oftiers increases the complexity of (an already sophisticated) model.

In all models, all students receive instruction within the primary prevention level (the core curriculum). This primary prevention level involves high quality core instruction (Tier I) and should be a given in any situation. Within the primary level instruction there is an assumption of universal applicability in that: all of the curriculum materials are research based for the target population of learners; procedures are in place to monitor the fidelity of implementation of the core curriculum; teaching and learning are well articulated from one grade to another, and within grade levels, so that students have highly similar experiences, regardless of their assigned teacher; most or all teachers differentiate instruction using students’ assessment data to identify their students’ needs; school-based professional development is institutionalized and structured so that all teachers continuously examine, reflect on, and improve instructional practice. It is important to note however that these could, in certain circumstances, be highly presumptive and inaccurate assumptions: where a teacher is inexperienced or otherwise challenged by personal or other circumstances, where for, example, there has been high teacher turn-over, or where there is a paucity of resources, there simply may not have been high quality core instruction.

The secondary level includes evidence-based intervention(s) of moderate intensity (Tier II). Tier II prevention focuses on students who have been identified through the screening process as being at risk for poor learning outcomes. This is typically between 15 percent and 20 percent of the entire population. In an effective secondary system: all secondary-level interventions should be evidence based; secondary level prevention should be well aligned with core instruction; and procedures should be in place to monitor the fidelity of implementation of secondary level interventions. Decisions about responsiveness to intervention should also be based on reliable and valid progress monitoring data that reflect the slope of improvement or the final status at the end of secondary level prevention. All of this secondary level intervention is best undertaken in the classroom without taking the student out of the mainstream.

The tertiary prevention level includes individualized intervention(s) of increased intensity for students who show minimal response to secondary prevention (Tier III). It is the most intensive of the three levels and is individualized to target each student’s area(s) of need. The teacher should begin with a more intensive version of the intervention program used in secondary prevention but does not presume that this will meet the student’s needs and so conducts frequent progress monitoring with each student. If and when this indicates that the student’s rate of progress is unlikely to achieve the established learning goal, the teacher should initiate a problem-solving process by modifying the intervention program and monitoring which modified components seem to be working. The end result should be an effective, individualized instructional program. There are though discussions about whether this Tier III prevention should always take place within the classroom or whether it should fall under the auspices of Special Education practitioners.

https://www.minisink.com/uploads/pics/RtI_system_resize_02.jpg

Data-Based Decision Making
A major component of RTI is data collection and analysis which ensures implementation of effective instructional strategies. Effective data-based decision making results in an improved RTI system, “improved achievement for students who are vulnerable in the system, and improved efficiency of resource allocation decisions.” Data is collected using screening measures (e.g. standardized tests) that are “aligned with learning expectations at each grade level [using] content-controlled materials.” The data should be able to show “valid estimates of student performance that predict future success at that grade level.” Screenings should be administered at appropriate times in the school year, measuring reasonable learning expectations for a particular time of the year. Finally, there should be “standard administration procedures” in place. With effective data collection processes in place, fair, objective, accurate interventions can be planned for at-risk learners. (VanDerHeyden)

Parent Involvement
Parent involvement is another important component in RTI. Often not mentioned much, parental involvement plays a huge part in successfully achieving RTI implementations. Schools and parents should work hand-in-hand to provide the best for their children. Schools implementing RTI provide parents information about their child’s progress, the instruction and interventions used, the staff who are delivering the instruction, and the academic or behavioral goals for their child. It is important to include parents on any interventions planned to be implemented on their children. They should be educated so that they can reinforce any interventions at home.

Contributors
Kimberly Cochrane added the outline format of this page. She also contributed a summary paragraph on Universal Screening.

Thomas Morrill contributed a summary paragraph on Progress Monitoring.

Shanda Bonn contributed a summary paragraph on Data-Based Decision Making.

Adrian Moore contributed four summary paragraphs on the Multi-level Prevention system.

Sean Calabrese contributed a summary paragraph on Universal Screening and progress monitoring.

Brittany Payne contributed the image of the RTI system.

Shinese Anderson contributed a summary paragraph of parent involvement as it relates to RTI.