Building Your Blueprint for Successful RTI Implementation

Finding adequate staff is always a challenge. One of the problems our school faced several years ago was the fact that we had more children that needed services than we had staff or time. At that point we needed to look at how effective our CORE reading program was for our students. When we looked at the data we were only meeting the needs of 47% of our students with our core.

It’s impossible to run an effective RTI model servicing over 50% of your students. My suggestion would be to take a good look at your core reading program. In the meantime, you may want to try dividing these students into smaller skill groups and “attacking” their deficits in 6 week intervals. This was relatively successful as a short term solution for us.

Janice, There is no magic way of providing enhanced instruction for your struggling students. Monitoring student progress with any method you choose is essential to assure growth. The model that has worked in my building over the last 4-5 years is this:

Core reading program with differentiated instruction by the classroom teacher for 90-120 minutes.

Pull out intervention services, for the highest need students from across the grade level, are done for 30 additional minutes a day.

The reading specialists will regroup these "struggling" students based on need and provide services to match.

During this grade level intervention time period, the "emergent" and "on track" students remain in the classroom. The classroom teacher provides extra instruction and further differentiation for the "emergent" and extension activities for the "on track" students

Typically, there are reading specialists within the building that can take on this role. I have also regrouped children within the same grade level and used the classroom teachers to provide services during intervention time slots. Often we use paraprofessionals in these situations for supervision and/or reteaching.

"Ideal" size of intervention groups depend on many factors, typically we try not to have any group larger than 5. The higher the need, the smaller the group.

We evaluate our intervention groups every 6 weeks. We progress monitor these students every 2 weeks. When we have 3 data points from the progress monitoring, we feel confident to make program decisions for the student.

We have no set time frame for making decisions for our students. Each student is treated individually and monitored to see if their plan is working. We go through many 6-week cycles and use more diagnostic assessments to analyze student growth, or lack of growth, before moving into a higher tier.

Yes. If you are referring to a school district and/or school building, a common approach is to establish a District-Based Leadership Team (DBLT) and a School-Based Leadership Team (DBLT). The DBLT is comprised of representatives from curriculum, reading/math, special education, student services, and similar areas. The existence of a DBLT emphasizes the general education commitment to RtI. At the school level, a similar group (e.g., school improvement team) exists to guide the process. It is common for each school to have a data coach--an individual who can guide the implementation and interpretation of data. Typically, this is a person who already exists in the building (e.g., school psychologist). It is important that the staff in the building have a designated "go to" person for questions about problem-solving/RtI. The team guides the process, supports implementation and evaluates the impact.

Many schools and districts are establishing initial criteria for positive, questionable and poor response to intervention. The decision is based on the degree of improvement and the degree to which the student is closing the gap on attainment of the benchmark or state-approved, grade-level standards.

A positive response to intervention would be defined as significant improvement and closing the gap in a timeline established by the team. A questionable response to intervention would be defined as an improvement, but the rate of closing the gap is less than desired or necessary to ultimately achieve the benchmark in a reasonable time frame. A poor response to intervention is any condition in which the gap continues to widen.

This is an excellent question--one asked infrequently, if ever. Response to Intervention is actually the 4th step in the Problem-Solving process. The problem-solving process has 4 steps--problem identification, problem analysis, intervention implementation and evaluation of the response to intervention. It is the problem analysis step that leads us to an understanding of either why the desired behavior is not occurring or the conditions under which it can or cannot occur.

For example, if a student's comprehension level is significantly below expectation, then the team would ask the question, "This student is not able to demonstrate grade-level comprehension because...." Clearly, many reasons exist for poor comprehension (e.g., fluency, vocabulary, previous learning/experience). Unless a school has staff who understand the skill and development factors that contribute to strong comprehension, then successful instructional or intervention strategies are not likely to be developed. In reality, it may not be a comprehension problem at all--it could be a fluency problem related to poor understanding of the alphabetic principle. The development of potential reasons (hypotheses) and the collection of data to identify the most likely explanation are skills critical to successful problem-solving. Clearly, the danger of using an intervention "cookbook" is that the "wrong" intervention would be selected. Even if that intervention was implemented with integrity, if it did not address the student need, then the student would not progress. When students do not progress, a common interpretation is that there is something wrong with the student. In this case, it is more likely that the intervention was not appropriate.

Do not bite off more than you can chew. Implementing with integrity is most important. Typically, schools move through three phases--development of consensus, establishment of the infrastructure and then implementation of practice. It is important to develop staff consensus that this approach will meet the needs of their students. Take the time to discuss and develop consensus. Giving staff the tools (data, technology to display and interpret the data, intervention support and documentation, needs assessments to determine high frequency needs of students to inform Tier 2 "standard protocol" interventions, professional development) to successfully implement RtI is necessary before you attempt to make it your "way of work."

Many schools have chosen to start with kindergarten or the early grades. Data collection is easier, assessment methods more fully developed, range of instruction and interventions is narrower and less complex and the number of staff to include in professional development is more manageable. More importantly, starting at a higher grade level without improving the outcomes for students in the earlier grades makes the process more difficult.

The reality is that RtI is a school reform process that focuses on ensuring the effectiveness of core instruction and behavior programs prior to trying to "fix" students who are having difficulty. It is difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that a student has a disability when that student is struggling in a class where half of the students are not achieving grade-level benchmarks. Schools do not have the resources to provide supplemental and intensive instruction to more than 20% of students. Therefore, core instruction must be effective for 70-80% of students and must be developed and implemented to achieve that goal. The "unit of analysis", if you will, of RtI is the Building, not district level. The demographics and needs of students vary significantly across buildings in a district. Core instruction must be responsive to the needs of the students in a particular building.

So, the first step in the implementation of RtI is to evaluate the effectiveness of core instruction and to problem-solve how to improve the impact of core instruction if it is less than effective. Once this has been accomplished, then typically resources are more likely to be available to the students who are struggling--as long as we are not trying to "fix" half of the students in a building with supplemental service staff.

This question is asked repeatedly by parents and teachers. RTI is a process that monitors all students. In my building, our teachers look for progress in all children. The expectation is that classroom teachers will provide extension activities for our top readers with the expectation that growth will occur. These students are monitored 3 times per year using benchmark assessments. We may also provide progress monitoring to our top students if we do not see adequate growth.

Yes. The basic concepts of RtI apply to any level of performance. If we can define clearly the desired skill, the level to which we want that skill to be attained, the time frame for attainment and a way to measure that skill then we can use RtI. The data collection should use a method that measures small changes in student performance and can be administered frequently and efficiently.

RtI is a method to engaged in data-based decision making. It is not conceptually "tied" to any "type" of student or any specific curriculum area. It is, in essence, bringing science to practice.

The most common answer to this question is 4-6 years to attain the goal of using RtI as the "way of work." As stated in an earlier answer to a question, typically schools move through the consensus, infrastructure development and implementation process in a stepwise fashion. A number of states and school districts that have implemented RtI in a systematic way provide professional development for staff over a three year period of time. Each year, the staff receives five days of professional development (over the course of the year). The professional development each year focuses on a particular skill set--beginning with data collection, decision-making with core instruction and moving to supplemental and intensive services.

The implementation of RtI is a journey, not a sprint. Slow, systematic implementation with sufficient staff support and professional development is the key.

I would recommend that you visit the RTI Action Network Web site. This is the best website available to support the implementation of RtI at the building level. Visit the section titled, "Get Started." Hopefully, this will provide the information that will be helpful.

Yes. One new source designed specifically for this purpose is the RtI Action Network. The website is www.rtinetwork.org. The National Association of Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) is another excellent source for the type of information that you are requesting. Their Web site is Nasdse.org. Visit  the NASDSE Response to Intervention (RtI) Project. 

RtI is a comprehensive method of organizing and delivering instructional and intervention services to all students. Tier 1 is core instruction and is defined by the core academic and behavior instruction provided to all students. Tier 2 is supplemental instruction and interventions provided to some of the students in a building who are not succeeding in an effective, core program. Tier 3 is intensive interventions provided to a small number of students in a building. A key indicator of a building "doing RtI" is that they have an instruction/intervention resource map that identifies all of the academic and behavior instruction/interventions available to students at the core, supplemental and intensive levels.

On key component of this resource map is the degree to which the interventions in Tiers 2 and 3 are integrated with core instruction in Tier 1. In a "traditional" system, remedial and special education services are less integrated with core instruction than in an RtI model. A student should have one "academic or behavior plan." It is the responsibility of the professionals in the building to ensure that the services provided across Tiers are integrated and support a student's success in core instruction. Perhaps there is a qualitative difference between "establishing interventions" and ensuring that the interventions are linked, integrated and are evidence-based. This is a judgment that each building leadership team will have to make.

Yes. A number of resources exist to support organization and graphic representation/interpretation of data. Many districts have developed their own through their Instructional Technology resources. AIMSweb, Wireless Generation, Intervention Central, Voyager, DIBELS and many state-developed options exist. The danger of listing any here is that some will be excluded. I recommend that you have a group of data-knowledgeable staff in your building or district investigate all of the options available through the internet and networking with staff from other districts. This group can then identify the resources that match best with your school or district.

 

There are several implementation tools that can help with the process of RTI. The RTI network web site has access to these tools. The conditions that allowed this process to take place in my building started with the shared frustration from the entire staff about the status of our students. 8-9 years ago we were doing interventions that we thought were going to work. The problem was we had no data to validate what worked or to confirm no progress was being made. We went by teacher input that consisted of anectodal records and/or some class test scores. When we instituted benchmark assessments 3 times per year and created progress monitoring for our struggling students, our staff was extremely receptive. It validated their "gut" feelings about students and gave us direction to help set a program in place.

A key component of RtI is a building resource map that identified all of the instructional and intervention options for core (Tier 1), supplemental (Tier 2) and intensive (Tier 3) services. Title 1 may, in fact be, the most frequently delivered supplemental instructional service in U.S. public schools. There is no direct link between any entitlement program such as Title 1 and RtI. Each building must identify all of the effective services available in a building and then construct their instruction/intervention map for that building. This includes special education services.

Our current data collection process consists of universal screenings in Sept., Feb., and May. We determine need based on these assessments. Progress monitoring occurs every 2 weeks for the highest need students that are receiving services. The data is available through our computer network for all relevant teachers to observe. This data is continually monitored by all teachers and by my office. We meet every 6 weeks to discuss student data and change/continue programming as neccesary. Teachers may progress monitor any student in their class if they feel the need. They will then bring that data to our 6 week meeting and introduce it for discussion.

A number of initiatives are underway across the United States that investigate the application of RtI principles to early childhood education. The Frank Porter Graham Center's Recognition and Response Project is one such effort that you might investigate at the FPG Web site and Recognition & Response Web site. Get It Got I Go!  at the University of Minnesota is another excellent resource for the application of RtI principles in the early childhood arena.

In the area of positive behavior supports and RtI principles, the following resource might be helpful. It can be accessed at: http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/Kansas_Book_Web.pdf

When building an RtI map, a school should consider including evidence-based interventions available to any student in need--regardless of where it is provided. Many schools have both before and after school programs for targeted assistance. If an after-school program is an available intervention, then it should be included on the map as a potential resource. The map should contain all viable resources that can be delivered with integrity.

Most states have "state-approved, grade-level standards" that are derived from the state curriculum standards. These are the "benchmarks" that are used for goal setting. Particularly with progress monitoring and benchmarking, these grade level performance standards are used first when considering the effectiveness of core instruction (Tier 1). Short-term goals can be set for small groups or individual student to assess progress that reflects the level of instruction the student is receiving. However, these students should continue to be included in benchmark assessment to evaluate the degree to which their current performance and progress compares to the grade-level standards.

This is an excellent question. I am providing the answer that I gave to a similar question in hopes that it meets your needs as well.

RtI is a comprehensive method of organizing and delivering instructional and intervention services to all students. Tier 1 is core instruction and is defined by the core academic and behavior instruction provided to all students. Tier 2 is supplemental instruction and interventions provided to some of the students in a building who are not succeeding in an effective, core program. Tier 3 is intensive interventions provided to a small number of students in a building. A key indicator of a building "doing RtI" is that they have an instruction/intervention resource map that identifies all of the academic and behavior instruction/interventions available to students at the core, supplemental and intensive levels.

On key component of this resource map is the degree to which the interventions in Tiers 2 and 3 are integrated with core instruction in Tier 1. In a "traditional" system, remedial and special education services are less integrated with core instruction than in an RtI model. A student should have one "academic or behavior plan." It is the responsibility of the professionals in the building to ensure that the services provided across Tiers are integrated and support a student's success in core instruction. Perhaps there is a qualitative difference between "establishing interventions" and ensuring that the interventions are linked, integrated and are evidence-based. This is a judgment that each building leadership team will have to make.

The first phase of implementing RtI is the development of consensus to engage this process. The work of Joyce and Showers has given us an understanding that consensus can be facilitated by ensuring the staff understands the need for the initiative and shares the belief that either they have the skills to implement the process or will have adequate support to implement the process. The "need" is often communicated by presenting student data on the effectiveness of both core and supplemental instruction in the building. We use beliefs surveys and perception of practices surveys to facilitate this process.

A detailed explanation of this process and pdf version of those surveys are available in the Get Started section of the RTI Action Network Web site.

This question has been around as long as our SLD students have been in our classrooms. The key is communication with parents and data collection. We must be honest with parents in providing information about their child's ability compared to their peer group. (Grade level) Providing information on continued growth throughout the year needs to be provided to parents/students with adequate explanations and relative to their individual goals. Parents need to be adequately informed of their child's growth.

The primary Tier 1 documentation that is necessary is evidence that the core instruction is being delivered with integrity. Clearly, the student-centered data available to the team will indicate the degree to which the instruction is effective. One has to make a decision about integrity checks when students overwhelmingly are profiting from that instruction. Of greater concern is the situation in which a significant percent of students are not meeting standards with core instruction. Documentation should include the intervention strategy, the focus of that strategy (specific skill--e.g., fluency) and the number of minutes per week that the instruction was provided. Simple forms can be developed and completed by teachers with little or not time intrusion. Another method of documentation is Principal Walk Through Evaluations. The Florida Center for Reading Research has examples of these at the following URL: http://www.fcrr.org/Curriculum/curriculum.htm#Principal