IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION:
A PROGRAM MODEL FOR TITLE I TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS
Gail Inouye Bruce
B.A., San Francisco State University, 1983
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Language and Literacy)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2009
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION:
A PROGRAM MODEL FOR TITLE I TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS
A Project
by
Gail Inouye Bruce
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
John Shefelbine, Ph.D.
_________________________________
Date
ii
Student: Gail Inouye Bruce
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the Project.
______________________________, Department Chair
Robert Pritchard, Ph.D.
Department of Teacher Education
iii
_________________________
Date
Abstract
of
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION:
A PROGRAM MODEL FOR TITLE I TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS
by
Gail Inouye Bruce
Statement of Problem
In 2004 when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was
reauthorized, Response to Intervention (RtI) was specified as an alternative or supplement to the
traditional discrepancy approach, which until then had been the sole method of identifying
students as learning disabled. This change was in response to the need for addressing the
alarmingly high numbers of children categorized as having a specific learning disability (SLD)
and the overrepresentation of minority and low-income students within this group. The positive
attention to and interest in RtI has been increasing since it was published in August 2006, but
without federal guidelines to accompany its release, states, districts, and schools were left on their
own to interpret how best to implement and fund RtI. This lack of guidance has presented
challenges for schools hoping to implement and can potentially lead to weak, uncoordinated
implementation.
The purpose of this project is to present a manual that describes a framework for
implementing RtI in an elementary school and is specifically designed and appropriate for Title I
Targeted Assistance funded sites, where services are provided for the academically neediest
students first. One of the major goals of the manual is to help all school staff develop an in-depth
understanding of RtI so that everyone can become active participants in the process of
distinguishing between students who should be referred to special education and students who
should not. The second major goal is to present a model that maximizes the opportunities for the
success of below-benchmark students, by defining ways to provide the most appropriate
intervention possible while using current Title I funds. The methodology used to create the
framework aligned the requirements and features of RtI, Title I Targeted Assistance program
compliance, and practices of compensatory programs that have been suggested as effective in the
largest studies of support programs.
Sources of Data
The program structure outlined in the manual has been implemented in two different
schools for a two year period. The schools were located in a mid-sized city in the Central Valley
region of California. Although the schools were in the same school district, they were
significantly different in their student populations and amount of professional development
received by the teaching staff in prior years. The first school was a kindergarten through 6th grade
iv
school in which 80% of the students were low-income students and 30% were English Learners
(ELs), and where the staff had extensive and numerous years of professional development. The
second school was a kindergarten through 8th grade school, formerly middle to upper-middle
income, and now a Title I school with steadily growing low-income and EL student subgroups.
Data collected to determine the impact of implementation of this RtI model were measured by the
California Standards Test (CST) results using: (a) the Academic Performance Index (API), (b)
Similar Schools Ranking, and (c) the percent of low-income students performing proficient or
advanced. Also presented are the results of a questionnaire given to the special education teachers
concerning the number of referrals and assessment plans signed.
Conclusions Reached
In both schools, results were similar after implementation of the RtI model for each of two
years: CST scores showed positive gains in API, Similar Schools Ranking, and the percentage of
low-income students performing proficient or advanced. In the first school after the first year, the
number of students referred to special education decreased, and subsequently, the number of
students on their caseload was reduced by 40%, but in the second school, special education
numbers were unchanged and remained at the maximum level allowed. These results suggest that
the implementation of the RtI model produce significant changes in student achievement and may
reduce the need for referrals to and students served by special education. The structuring of RtI
through a Title I Targeted Assistance program should, therefore, be a consideration for sites with
federal Title I funds attempting to implement RtI.
_________________________, Committee Chair
John Shefelbine, Ph.D.
_________________________
Date
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 1
Significance of the Project ........................................................................................... 2
Background .................................................................................................................. 2
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 3
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 4
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Remainder of the Chapters ........................................................... 8
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................ 10
The Need for Change in Special Education ................................................................ 11
The Role of Title I ...................................................................................................... 16
Effective Programs in Compensatory Education ....................................................... 18
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 21
Background ................................................................................................................. 21
Alignment of RtI and Title I Requirements ................................................................ 21
Creating the Program ................................................................................................. 24
4.
EVALUATION OF THE MODEL IN TWO SCHOOLS .............................................. 28
Two-year Implementation at Two Title I Targeted Assistance Schools ..................... 28
Results ....................................................................................................................... 39
Summary of the Results .............................................................................................. 43
5.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDTIONS ................................................................. 45
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 45
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 45
Appendix A. Manual ............................................................................................................... 47
Appendix B. Sample Forms .................................................................................................... 82
References …………………………………………………………………….……………...93
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
1.
Alignment of Three-tier Approach and Program Features …………………………..27
2.
Four-year Comparison of State Test Results…………………………………………41
3.
Special Education Resource Teachers’ Responses to Questionnaires………………..42
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
Three-tier approach ……..…………………………………………………………… 26
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The chronically high percentage of students identified with a specific learning disability
(SLD) has generated questions about the effectiveness of the traditional discrepancy model as the
sole method of identifying students for special education services (U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [OSERS], 2002). The reauthorization of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 2004, specified Response
to Intervention (RtI) as an alternative approach when identifying students with SLDs. This
addresses the need for a proactive approach to prevent the misidentification of students with
SLDs and for increasing the success rate of struggling students by providing early and appropriate
intervention, specifically in the area of reading. However, aside from two basic requirements, a
critical challenge was presented when no federal guidelines were given for the creation of
program models or for implementation. Therefore, districts and individual schools that
anticipated putting this new model into place were left on their own to interpret how RtI could
best be addressed and funded.
The role of the discrepancy model used until recently for identifying students as learning
disabled is to determine whether there is a significant a gap between a child’s ability and his
achievement. As the literature review will make a case for, the major flaw in its use is that it will
not reveal the reason for the discrepancy. Also, students did not “qualify” until 3rd grade by
which time patterns of failure had been well established. This, in turn, has likely lead to many
underachieving students being misidentified when the underperformance is possibly the result of
other factors, such as lack of any intervention or inappropriate instruction. The main purpose in
implementing an RtI model, therefore, is to have a process by which to distinguish between
2
students who are: (a) underachieving because they require intervention, and, (b) students who are
indeed learning disabled.
Significance of the Project
The purpose of this project is to present a manual that describes a framework for
implementing RtI in an elementary school setting and is specifically appropriate and designed for
Title I Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS). This framework, first, aligns the requirements and
structure of RtI with Title I TAS mandates, second, incorporates compensatory education
program structures that have emerged from studies as effective, third, describes a support
program that maximizes the chances of student success by providing struggling students with the
most appropriate instruction, fourth, maximizes the utilization of Title I monies for direct student
services, and, finally, provides guidance for individual districts and schools in setting up RtI
models with steps explained and roles for school staff defined.
Description of the project. This manual is to be used as a guide for administrators,
classroom teachers, support staff, and extended-school-day personnel to enable an entire school
staff to develop an in-depth understanding of and become active participants in the
implementation of the RtI model. It begins with the background of and the need for RtI, defines
and explains requirements and features of RtI, notes precautions, and gives the most common
example of an RtI model. There are step-by-step instructions with explanations about the
components necessary for organizing and implementing RtI accompanied by sample forms to aid
in documentation. The manual includes examples of collaborative team meetings focused on data
analysis for the purpose of planning appropriate instruction for leveled groups.
Background
RtI is often referred to as a three-tiered delivery model in which students are given
multiple opportunities to demonstrate learning. The model defines feature of RtI as a multi-step
3
process with increasing levels of instructional intensity for students who continue to struggle.
Since the main purpose of RtI is to provide appropriate intervention for low-achieving student,
Title I, historically, the main support program for addressing this need is the likely place from
which to structure RtI. Title I TAS program requirements are also closely aligned to the threetiered RtI model making it an optimal place from which to organize and coordinate the process of
RtI. Coordination from the Title I program allows these funds to support school-day and
extended-day programs, thus expanding the opportunities for serving students and centralizes
monitoring of student progress.
Methodology
This project was created after extensively examining literature and attending symposia
lead by researchers and policy experts to gain an in-depth understanding of RtI, Title I, special
education, and the historical perspectives involved with all three. After features and requirements
of both RtI and Title I TAS were carefully aligned and features of effective compensatory
programs included, the model was implemented in two different elementary schools for two years
at each site.
The goals for implementations involved a school-wide effort and were prioritized as
follows. First was to structure a program that provided appropriate intervention for as many
students below-benchmark as possible while keeping the quality of instruction high. This is the
foundation of both RtI and Title I TAS programs. Second, the Title I program became the center
of coordination. This allowed for funding of additional support staff and a way monitoring of
student achievement in a centralized and systematic manner throughout the school year.
This model, besides increasing the achievement of struggling students, provided
intervention early in the school year and served a larger number of primary-grade students.
Focusing more on the primary grades followed recommendations from research as those being
4
the most effective years to intervene and to prevent more difficult reading problems from
developing, thereby reducing the numbers of children placed at risk for special education referral
in future years.
The data collected to determine whether any significant changes occurred were gathered
from the California Standards Test (CST) scores, as reflected in the measures of the Academic
Performance Index (API) and Similar Schools Ranking. Also noted were the number of referrals
to special education and the number of students with an SLD on the caseloads of the special
education resource teachers. Since this was not an experimental study, there was no control
group. The intention was to implement this specific RtI model and note whether academic
performance and special education referrals and services were affected.
Definition of Terms
Achievement gap: Generally, the difference between the below-benchmark academic
performance of certain groups of students in a school or on standardized tests and the
performance expected.
API: Academic performance index is a scaled score generated by students CST scores.
API is used to rate the overall academic achievement of a school and to track the school
performance from year to year.
At-risk students: Students who are unlikely to pass a grade, pass a standardized test, or to
graduate from high school on the basis of several risk factors, such as, poor grades, poor reading
skills, or lack of other basic skills.
AYP: Adequate yearly progress is a federal measure of student subgroup performance on
standardized tests. A predetermined percentage of all subgroups must meet proficiency goals or
face program improvement status.
5
Benchmark: A predetermined performance level that students are expected to reach at a
specific time during the school year or grade.
Compensatory education: Instruction that is in addition to core classroom instruction for
the purpose of addressing the needs of low-performing students.
CST: California Standards Test is given annually in grades 2-12 to measure students’
proficiency toward grade-level standards.
Diagnostic assessment: A type of assessment that goes beyond merely identifying
students who are not performing well, but instead reveals specific areas and degrees of mastery
and weakness. These formative assessments tell the teacher what a student knows and does not
know and helps plan instruction with specific targets.
Discrepancy model: An approach used to determine whether a student is learning
disabled by administering assessments that measures ability (based on IQ) and achievement.
Generally, if there is at least a two-year difference between the two, a learning disability is
considered the reason for performance not reaching the student’s potential ability.
IDEA, 2004: Reauthorization of the federal Individual with Disabilities Education Act of
1997, preceded by P.L. 94-142 in 1975, which ensured a free, appropriate public education for
students with disabilities. Children eligible would receive special education according to an
individualized education program (IEP).
Intervention: (Instructional intervention) A type of instruction given to below-benchmark
students for the purpose of filling in the gaps of skills, accelerating learning to reach grade level,
or supplementing regular classroom instruction where performance is weak.
Program improvement (PI) status: Schools or districts who receive federal funds and do
not meet AYP targets for two consecutive years face corrective action, increasing in severity as
the number of years in PI status increase.
6
Pull-out: The practice of removing students from the regular classroom and providing
supplemental instruction in another location by someone other than the classroom teacher.
Push-in: Delivery of supplemental instruction where support personnel provide
additional help to specific students within the regular classroom.
Resource teacher: A special education teacher who is responsible for providing services
to students who are mainstreamed with an individual educational plan (IEP) including those
students with specific learning disabilities.
RtI: Response to Intervention (also known as, Response to Instruction or Responsiveness
to Intervention) A federal initiative specified as a substitute for or supplement to the traditional
ability-achievement discrepancy model used to qualify students for special education services. It
is a multi-step process with service delivery consisting of multiple opportunities for students to
demonstrate learning at different levels of intensity with increasingly more individualized
instruction.
Similar Schools Ranking: Score on a scale of 1 to 10 with the school’s standardized
testing results ranked when compared to 100 schools with similar demographics and
characteristics, for example, student socio-economic status, percentage of English Learners,
ethnicity, mobility, teacher credentialing, and average class sizes.
Specific Learning Disability (SLD): A category in special education that refers to a
disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
Support Staff: Personnel at a school other than classroom teachers who are hired to give
help to students and teachers, usually in the area of assisting with struggling or special-need
students.
7
Title I: Federal funding (also known as Chapter One funding) that began in 1965 with the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to help disadvantaged students (students of
poverty) achieve their full potential through improved educational programs. The goal of Title I
is to close the achievement gap for students of poverty.
Title I Targeted Assistance: A school can choose to be designated as such whereby Title
I funds would be used for only eligible students. Different from a Schoolwide Title I option,
where funds are used more freely to improve the overall quality of a school, the funds for
Targeted Assistance can only be used for students designated as the lowest academic achievers.
Universal Screening: Any chosen assessment given to all students with a predetermined
“cut” score to identify those not performing at benchmark.
Limitations
This section briefly discusses the limitations of the findings and acknowledges that
results may not be conclusive, since it is not within the scope of this study to determine whether
implementation of the RtI model alone was solely responsible for the results.
State Testing Results
Although the schools studied are measured by documented state testing results (CST,
API, and Similar Schools Ranking), a number of factors could impact the validity of test scores;
therefore, the scores should be considered only one measure of educational achievement during a
single testing period. Examples of factors are: (a) possibility of different students tested through
mobility, graduation, or absences, (b) introduction of new curriculum, (c) different teachers (new
to staff, long-term substitute teachers, or teachers assigned to different grade levels), (d)
differences in test items, and, (e) student performance during a single testing period sometimes
affected by illness, temperament, testing environment, or other distractions.
8
Number of Students Referred for Special Education Assessment
The number of referrals to special education can be influenced by a number of factors
besides an achievement gas. Specific students attending a school in any given year can vary
significantly, as do their needs. Classroom teachers assigned to the school can change, and it is
their referrals and referral criteria that generate the initial recommendations to special educations.
Parents also have the right to make referrals.
SLD Students on Special Education Caseloads
The number of students on the caseloads of the special education resource teacher does
not always represent the students who were at the school and eventually qualified for special
education services because of low achievement. Although there was a dramatic decrease in the
number of students at one school, mobility, graduation, and children exiting the resource program
(students are reassessed triennially) can impact the number. In the case of the second school
where numbers remained constant, the numbers remained at the maximum allowed by teacher
contract. The total numbers do not reveal whether the students are new, continuing, transferring
into the resource program, or on the waiting list.
Organization of the Remainder of the Chapters
The remaining chapters are organized as follows. Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature
and provides a historical overview of RtI and it’s relationship to Title I. It reveals the
development of the need for change leading to the federal recommendation for RtI, and describes
Title I’s role historically. The literature review also summarizes studies made of compensatory
program to determine effective features. Chapter 3 explains the methodology used to develop the
framework for the program presented in the manual and offers justification for the structure.
Chapter 4 presents the evaluation of the model in two schools where the Title I programs were
structured using the RtI framework. Chapter 5 discusses limitations and makes suggestions for
9
schools hoping to implement the program structure presented in the manual. The manual will be
in Appendix A and related forms will be in Appendix B.
10
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Minority and low-income students are often disproportionately represented in the
numbers of students designated as learning disabled (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller, Holtzman,
& Messick, 1982; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999). This fact, together with the
knowledge that the number of children identified with a specific learning disability (SLD) has
tripled during the last thirty years raised questions about how students are identified for special
education and about factors that may contribute to students being misidentified (U.S. Department
of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [OSERS], 2002).
After consideration of extensive reporting by OSERS, IDEA, 2004 addressed these
concerns by allowing an alternative method to the traditional discrepancy approach, which, until
then, was the sole measure used to determine a learning disability. Inherent in the alternative
method was the desire to eliminate the common practice of leaving students in a “wait-to-fail”
mode for the purpose of allowing enough time for a discrepancy between ability and achievement
to become measurable (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008; OSERS, 2002). Response to Intervention
(RtI), the alternative method specified in IDEA, 2004, is not mandatory, has only two
requirements, and was written without federal guidance for implementation. The two
requirements specified were the used of research-based strategies and the appropriateness of
instruction based on data. Interpretations of how RtI should be structured, who it should involve,
and how it could be funded were left up to school districts and individual school sites to
determine.
RtI was also a response to the overrepresentation and likely misidentification of lowincome and minority students who overwhelmed special education programs. Consequently, the
deficiencies in Title I, the federal program designed specifically to address the academic
11
challenges of this population of students, must be identified and examined in greater detail in an
effort to improve the program.
This review of the literature consists of three major sections aimed at making a case for
the implementation of RtI in a Title I TAS and discusses what the literature reveals about key
effective features that must be considered. The review begins by giving the reader the
background of RtI and explains how the need for this initiative developed over thirty years. This
section also discusses the research on which the recommendations for RtI were based and
provides more information on the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004.
The section that follows gives an historical overview of the relationship between Special
Education and Title I. It outlines some of the historical shifts in funding and policy that may have
impacted programs resulting in the lack of achievement for struggling students. It summarizes
studies of Title I programs and brings to light some of the shortcomings during its four decades of
existence.
The final section describes large studies of compensatory education and identifies key
program components found to be successful. These are essential in developing a plan for a
support programs such as RtI and Title I. This review of literature makes the case for structuring
a strong Title I TAS program with RtI as the means by which to identify, provide intervention for,
maximize success rate, and distinguish between students who need and will respond to
appropriate reading intervention and those who, because of a learning disability, will not.
The Need for Change in Special Education
Large Numbers of Students Identified with Specific Learning Disabilities
“A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families,” by The
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE), summarized the current
state of and made recommendations for improvements in special education (OSERS, 2002). The
12
number of children identified with SLDs was approximately three million at the time of the
report, 300 percent more than in 1976 when special education identification and services began.
The introduction to the report stated, “80 percent [children identified with an SLD] are there
simply because they haven’t learned how to read” (p. 3) with 40 percent believed to have
received placement in Special Education because they were not “taught to read” (p. 3). Reading
difficulties were the primary reason children qualified under the category of learning disabled for
special education services, and, therefore, acquisition of reading skills became the focus of
questions concerning the effectiveness of the discrepancy model in determining learning
disabilities (Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004).
Doubts about the Discrepancy Model
By this traditional method, students qualified for special education services when there
was a discrepancy, generally a minimum of a two-year gap, between their ability, or intelligence
(IQ), and their expected achievement based on that IQ. Controversy over whether IQ tests could
be used to predict reading achievement initiated extensive studying of students with reading
difficulties by Vellutino et al., (2004). Their findings suggested that IQ scores did not seem to
distinguish between those who could be remediated and those who could not. Therefore, the
argument was that the role of the IQ scores as a baseline from which discrepancies were
measured was of questionable value. Further studies argued that IQ tests are in themselves
simply assessments of reading ability (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). PCESE (OSERS,
2002) also reported that the assessments used to determine IQ were not always linked to
instruction, meaning that children may have been assessed on reading skills not yet taught in the
scope and sequence of their core program. This added further doubt to the validity of the
discrepancy approach as the sole method of identification in determining a reading disability.
13
Most importantly, the discrepancy approach could not distinguish between two broad
possibilities in groups of children who develop reading difficulties. One group consists of
children with deficits in their experiences and/or in instruction. This group, in other words, may
be children with limited background knowledge, limited vocabulary, or may be children with
inadequate or inappropriate instruction. This group requires intervention and may respond well.
The second group, on the other hand, has reading-related cognitive disabilities that prevent them
from acquiring reading skills through traditional teaching methods; these are the children with
learning disabilities (Vellutino et al., 2004; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006).
What is surprising and unsettling is that both groups may have similar test results using
the IQ-achievement approach, and if a two-year discrepancy were found, the reason for the gap
could not be determined by these assessments alone. Without documentation prior to the
assessments, decisions about how the discrepancy developed could not be made. The assessment
results would not tell us, for example, whether factors such as lack of appropriate instruction or
high absenteeism were responsible. Therefore, it is perplexing that the traditional method did not
require ruling out factors that could have placed students at risk for reading failure nor did it
require prior interventions before assessment or placement in special education.
Misidentification of Low-income and Minority Students
Multiple factors that could place children at a disadvantage when learning to read may
contribute to the high numbers of low-income and minority students who are likely misidentified
as learning disabled (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller et al., 1982; Oswald et al., 1999). Some of
these factors include lack of preschool, limited background knowledge, limited academic
language (the language of school), interruptions in instruction, lack of appropriate or adequate
instruction, and lack of a supportive home environment.
14
To give an example of the impact that a single factor might have, consider the
consequences of an interruption in instruction. It is often the case that a low-income family is
highly mobile. A single move could require a child to transfer to a new school resulting in
instruction that may not be sequential or that may involve different curriculum. Time away from
school before, during, and after a move could easily extend from days to months of lost
instruction. This is especially critical in the instruction of children in the primary grades when the
foundation for the acquisition of reading skills is established. Consequently, the loss of
instruction could logically lead to reading deficiencies. In this example, it seems clear that if a
reading difficulty is determined, instructional intervention must be provided before a referral to
special education is considered. Therefore, the lack of requirements for prior interventions or for
documentation of the student’s historical instruction or school attendance should be considered a
major flaw of the discrepancy approach.
Factors that have less easily measured impacts on learning could include a teacher’s
unfamiliarity with students who are culturally and linguistically diverse or a teacher with lower
expectations for minority or low-income students (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Oswald et al., 1999). In
either case, a need for some type of support or intervention would be necessary to ensure student
success, and this might include, but not be limited to, professional development for teachers.
“Wait to Fail”
After decades of using the traditional model, a pattern that commonly resulted was what
was known as the “wait-to-fail” mode (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008; OSERS, 2002). Since
only a single measure of discrepancy was necessary to make a student eligible for special
education services, students who were perceived by their teachers or other school staff as possibly
learning disabled were often “left” until enough of a discrepancy developed. A subsequent
referral for special education consideration generally occurred no earlier than third grade.
15
Consequently, this might have resulted in the first and second grades—the most important years
for the acquisition of reading skills—lacking intense efforts for intervention. Research
recommendations during the past fifteen years presented important insights into the benefits of
early intervention and its role in sustained reading success, and this has generated serious
questions about this practice (Torgensen, 1998; Vellutino, 2006).
Research on Early Intervention: “Instructionally Needy”
By the 1990s, researchers such as Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, and
Denckla (1996), and Fuchs, Fuchs, and Vaughn (2008) were studying the effects of early and
intensive intervention for children in kindergarten and first grade who were, by early literacy
measures, at risk for sustained reading difficulties. Early studies showed that students who
received kindergarten, kindergarten with first-grade, or first-grade only intervention were often
remediated with long-term reading difficulties prevented (Vellutino, et al, 1996). As a follow-up,
a large scale, long-term study undertaken between 1997 and 2003 by Vellutino et al. (2006)
supported earlier findings and tracked post-intervention effects. Students who were identified in
kindergarten or first grade as potentially at risk for reading difficulties by assessment of letter
names, phonological awareness, and rapid naming of objects and who received intensive
intervention had 84% of the participants sustain the gains made until the end of the third grade
when the study ended; these students were considered in the average range on reading
assessments. Moreover, 73% of the children in this study who fell in the average range in third
grade received only kindergarten intervention, representing 62% of the total sample. The data
obtained from these studies became the basis for RtI and supported to need for early
identification, early intervention, appropriateness of instruction, and identification of nonresponders by comparison to peers.
16
The Role of Title I
Background of Title I
If intervention is a key feature of RtI, then programs that are designed to provide
intervention must be examined and understood. The main support program for children most atrisk of school failure (meaning that their lack of success would eventually lead to retention,
failure to acquire reading skills, or dropping out before high school completion) has been and
continues to be Title I. Title I, a federal program, began with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 with the purpose of increasing the academic skills of low-income children
who were considered disadvantaged or as having deficiencies (also referred to as the “deficit
model”). According to Burnett (1994), who described results after scrutinizing Title I programs
through the previous three decades, nearly all programs concentrated on reading, and, with the
deficit model as their basis, programs taught students low-level skills using an approach of drill
and practice. There was a heavy use of worksheets and the basic skills taught were “mechanically
defined” (p. 44).
Also noted in Burnett’s report (1994) was the common practice of pulling students out of
class for Title I support. This often resulted in students missing core language-arts instruction
with transitions to and from class taking time away from instruction of any type. Instruction
rarely appeared sequential and was often not coordinated with the classroom. In the highest
poverty schools, half of the Title I staff commonly consisted of paraprofessionals who would
often provide as much of the teaching as the actual credentialed Title I teachers. Another indepth examination of Title I programs during this same period called instruction “highly
fragmented” (Allington & Walmsley, 1995, p. 9). From its start in 1965 though the late 1970s,
Title I seemed to fall short of meeting its goal of closing the achievement gap, but despite its
shortcomings, Title I served millions of disadvantaged students.
17
There were attempts during the 1970s to address some of the problems in Title I
programs by requiring that Title I instruction supplement core instruction rather than supplant it
(Borman, Stringfield, & Slavin, 2001). During this period, the literature on reading instruction
focused heavily on remediation for struggling readers (Allington, McGill-Franzen, Benner,
Wishart, & Lefsky, 2007), with the responsibility of serving these students considered to be that
of the Title I program. However, as will be shown in the following section, the responsibility of
serving struggling readers through three decades shifted back and forth between Title I and
special education.
Relationship of Special Education and Title I
In 1976 special education began serving students with the enactment of the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, also known as PL94-142. This law intended to protect
the rights of, needs of, and improve results for children with disabilities. According to Borman et
al. (2001) and Allington et al. (2007) some major changes during the 1980s affected the
relationship among special education, Title I, and struggling readers.
After 1981, the Reagan administration reduced the amount of funding that Title I
programs received. During this period, also came some changes in the guidelines outlining how
Title I monies could be spent; subsequently, guidelines allowed money to fund such extras as
after-school programs and class-size reduction. This reduced funding for direct services to
students. Consequently, there were incentives to move struggling readers into special education.
For example, since Title I was not an entitlement program, there were no guarantees of services.
Moreover, schools received money for every child placed in special education. In other words,
struggling readers needed to be in special education to be guaranteed services and for schools to
increase the amount of federal funding they received. The literature on reading also reflected this
shift and moved away from remediation toward a focus on learning disabilities. To be a
18
struggling reader no longer meant disadvantaged, but now meant disabled (Allington et al., 2007).
This began the practice of moving students into special education to receive supplemental
instruction. As a result, overwhelming numbers of students were placed into special education
programs, a practice that still continues.
Effective Programs in Compensatory Education
Studies of effectiveness
A study of compensatory education in elementary schools by Carter (1984) in the 1980s
was, at that time, the largest study ever conducted. Carter followed 120,000 students in 300
different elementary schools for three years and made several determinations. First, services to
the lower grades were more effective than to the higher grades. Second, direct instruction had the
best instructional outcome. Third, students at the lowest levels of achievement gained little if at
all. Lastly, lower classroom student-teacher ratios were found to be beneficial. The conclusion
made was that a strategically planned instructional model must include: (a) reduced group size in
all performance groups; (b) direct instruction for all students; (c) homogeneous grouping
opportunities to benefit all students including high achievers; (d) increased instructional time with
practices such as “centers” eliminated; and, (e) more intense instruction for the lowest students
necessary to produce any gains.
Slavin’s (1989) study of effective programs for students at risk concluded with several
features and observations noted. First, instruction was given to students grouped at the same
instructional level with flexible grouping. There was on-going progress monitoring with students
regrouped based on results and readiness to move on. Instructional attributes included
appropriate materials and appropriate sequential instruction with mastery the goal. Instruction
time was maximized through careful scheduling allowing more time on task. Teachers’ belief
systems were based on high expectations. Diagnostic assessments were utilized to determine
19
specific targets of instruction. Instruction was determined and planned by teachers rather than by
programs with quality of the instruction being more important than the delivery model (pull-out,
push-in, or after school).
Rotberg and Harvey’s (1993) findings and recommendations for improving the education
of low-income students supplemented by federal funds include two fundamental ideas. First,
instruction must supplement and not supplant, meaning that any compensatory instruction should
not replace core instruction. Next, achieving significant academic gains requires a serious
school-wide effort. Responsibility of accelerating the learning of low-achieving students cannot
be shifted to support staff, but must be a collaborative effort of the entire school staff.
Developing an Effective Support Model
Based on the information suggested by the above studies, it can be concluded that support
programs must contain some key features. First, direct explicit instruction must be the delivery
when low-performing students are given intervention in order to ensure the best instructional
outcomes. Instruction cannot merely keep pace with classroom learning, it must accelerate
learning to serve its purpose of closing the achievement gap.
Next, instructional groupings should be homogeneous with a smaller group size. Targets
of instruction for these groups must be determined by assessments with diagnostic value. The
groupings should also be flexible to allow students to move among these groups when appropriate
based on on-going assessments.
Third, students cannot receive supplemental instruction in replacement of core
instruction. Supplemental instruction should strengthen the core and should involve collaboration
between the classroom teacher and the support staff.
20
And, finally, efforts should be made towards thoughtful school-wide scheduling. This is
important to maximize instructional time, coordinate support from auxiliary staff, and to protect
core instruction from interruption.
The goal then in creating a model for supporting struggling students is to create one in
which the highest number of students would receive appropriate targeted direct instruction in the
smallest homogeneous groups possible in an efficient schedule that maximizes instructional time.
21
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Background
This chapter describes the methodology by which the RtI program model presented in the
project’s manual was created. The program model described in this project was specifically
designed to suit an elementary site designated as a Title I Targeted Assistance School (TAS). The
manual is meant to be a resource for administrators, classroom teachers, support staff, and
extended-day program personnel so an entire school staff can develop an in-depth understanding
of RtI and become active participants in the process. Procedures for implementing the program
structure is explained in detail in the manual in Appendix A.
The methodology used in creating this model was developed in two parts. First, the RtI
framework and the most common three-tiered RtI model were aligned with the requirements
regulating Title I TAS spending and service delivery. This alignment is described in the first
section and was used as the foundation for building the program model. The second step was to
incorporate effective features of compensatory education that have emerged as recommendations
from large-scale studies focusing on these types of programs.
Alignment of RtI and Title I Requirements
Requirements and Features of RtI
When RtI was specified as the alternative to the ability-achievement discrepancy
approach to identify children for special education services, only two requirements were stated.
The first was the use of research-based strategies. Research-based strategies were defined as ones
that have scientific research that support their effectiveness. The second requirement was that the
appropriate instruction or intervention be based on data. With these two requirements in mind
together with the ultimate goal of distinguishing between students who need and will respond to
22
intervention and those who, because of a learning disability, will not, the features of RtI that are
most commonly defined in the literature are the following: (a) a multi-step process with multiple
opportunities for students to demonstrate learning; (b) universal screening of academics,
behavior, and attendance to determine which students need closer monitoring or intervention; (c)
early screening with early intervention in Kindergarten to third grade a priority; (d) regular
assessments and data analysis to determine appropriate targets of instruction for intervention; (e)
high-quality, research-based classroom instruction; (f) interventions that supplement core
instruction without supplanting; (g) fidelity measures to ensure that core instruction and
interventions are implemented as intended and with consistency; (h) collaborative approach
between classroom teachers and support staff to ensure that all teachers are responsible for all
students; and, (i) parental involvement. The review of literature in Chapter 2 describes the
background of these in more detail.
In summary, in order to determine which students do not respond to the instruction, RtI
determines areas of instructional need and provides the intervention at increasingly more intense
and appropriate levels, thereby increasing the success rate of struggling students, specifically in
the area of reading. Consequently, only those non-responders are referred to special education, a
change from past practices in which high numbers of struggling readers were referred without the
experience of prior intervention.
Title I TAS Program Requirements and Features
Targeted students. Title I federal monies are awarded to schools based on the number of
low-income students. Allocation of funds are often determined by and distributed from the
district level, and in general, individual schools receive a set dollar amount per low-income child.
Although funds are apportioned in this manner, students who receive services are not always the
same children by which funds were generated. Eligible students are those “children identified by
23
the school as failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state’s academic content standards”
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2006, ¶ 2).
Students served, therefore, are those students in greatest academic need. Eligibility
works by serving the lowest achievers first and providing services upward from the lowest ranks
to the capacity of the program. In this way, services are “targeted” at the neediest students. This
is the major difference between schoolwide Title I schools and TAS: schoolwide programs use
the funds to improve the overall quality of the entire school while TAS programs must restrict the
funds to serve specific students fitting specific criteria.
Service delivery in TAS varies widely, as does staffing. The capacity of the program is
affected by a combination of the Title I teacher’s teaching load, the funding of paraprofessionals,
and before and after-school services. Additionally, the program capacity is impacted by the
overall organization of the program and efficiency of scheduling of services to students. In
general, most programs do not serve all students who do not meet academic standards, especially
if demands are high and staffing limited. The current estimate of those eligible who are actually
receiving services is approximately 50 percent (Allington, McGill-Franzen, Benner, Wishart, &
Lefsky, 2007).
Instructional guidelines. In addition to serving only eligible students, restrictions on the
use of funds are: (a) to supplement, and not to supplant, core instruction; (b) to use “methods and
instructional strategies that are proven to be effective and that strengthen the core curriculum”
(CDE, 2006, ¶ 2); and, (c) to document spending. The following are program recommendations
as outlined by the California Department of Education which monitors compliance within the
state for the use of funds: (a) extended learning opportunities; (b) high-quality instruction for
acceleration of learning; (c) minimal removal of students from core classroom instruction; (d)
collaboration and coordination with various services and support programs; (e) instruction by
24
highly qualified teachers; (f) professional development opportunities for the entire school staff;
(g) parental involvement; (h) on-going progress monitoring of student performance with
revisions, if necessary; and (i) Title I program plans incorporated into the school plan.
Creating the Program
The above descriptions and listing of requirements and features show how closely aligned
RtI and Title I are and make a logical case for combining the two programs. In creating this
program model, careful alignment of the requirements and features of RtI and Title I with
incorporation of features of effective programs were made in hopes of increasing academic
achievement for the students served. The major purpose of this program, therefore, is to give
students, especially those who are not reaching benchmark, appropriate and adequate intervention
based on assessment, with increasingly more individualized and intensive intervention if progress
fails to be made. Foremost is to increase the success rate of struggling students, or more
specifically, struggling readers. Ideally, the delivery of appropriate intervention with resultant
success will in turn, reduce the number of students referred to special education. Previously,
those students without intervention were likely inappropriately identified as learning disabled.
Three-Tier Approach to RtI
The most common model of RtI is the three-tier approach. It is based on the premise that
all students need instruction, but that some students simply require more. As you move upwards
from Tier I, the levels of intensity increase with students receiving more intervention time, more
specific targets of instruction, and more individualized instruction/tutoring through smaller
groups or one-on-one.
Tier I. The first tier is the foundation with high-quality core instruction in the general
education classroom and includes early and universal screening. All students receive appropriate,
differentiated instruction. Those students who still fall below benchmark on screening move up
25
to Tier II, and, historically, approximately 20% of the class will require intervention. If more
than 20% fall into this category, the quality of the classroom instruction should be examined.
Tier II. Students who move up to Tier II can receive intervention either in the general
education classroom, in a pull-out setting (such as Title I), or in an extended-day or extendedweek program. Instruction is in a small group with targeted instruction based on need as
determined by assessment. Interventions must be delivered with fidelity to rule out poor
interventions and inconsistencies. Students who perform poorly or do not respond to the
intervention received during approximately 8-12 weeks move up from Tier II to Tier III.
Tier III. Third tier has highly intensive, individualized instruction that can, but not
always, involve one-on-one tutoring. The length of each tutoring session might be longer than
those in Tier II, or as an alternative, the intervention can be provided twice a day instead of just
once (for example, once during the school day and again in an extended day session). Generally,
a referral to special education or tutoring by the resource teacher is involved in Tier III.
Ultimately, students in this tier who do not respond to the intensive intervention are those
students who will be considered for special education evaluation.
It is not clear whether Tier I applies after the 3rd grade when learning to read is no longer
an instructional priority in the general education classroom. Therefore, what happens in fourth
grade and beyond is not well represented in research. The following figure summarizes the threetier approach:
26
Figure 1. Three-tier approach.
Figure 1. Tier I is the foundation with students working upwards as a greater instructional need
develops. Percentages of students in the three tiers located on the right are the most common
guidelines.
Incorporating Effective Features with the Alignment
A three-tier RtI approach can incorporate features and requirements that would create an
efficient and effective Title I program for targeted students. The following table attempts to
illustrate the alignment of RtI, Title I, and effective features of compensatory programs into a
three-tier model. This will be the model described in detail in the manual.
27
Table 1
Alignment of Three-tier Approach and Program Features
RtI
Tier I
Title I
 Universal screening
 Identify eligible students
 High-quality core
 High-quality core
instruction protected from
instruction protected from
interruption
interruption
 Collaborative approach
between classroom teachers
 Collaborative approach
with shared responsibility
and support staff
Tier II
Compensatory Programs
 High-quality instruction
 Collaborative approach
without shifted
responsibility
 Parental involvement
 Parental involvement
 Instruction appropriate
 Acceleration of learning
 Use of diagnostic
based on date with fidelity
assessments and appropriate
measures
materials
 Supplements, not supplants
 Supplements, not
 Supplements, not supplants
supplants
 Supports core instruction
 Strengthens core
 Supports core instruction
instruction
 Additional time for
intervention
 On-going progress
monitoring
 Flexible, small,
homogeneous groups
Tier III
 More individualized
 Possible special education
involvement
 Minimal removal from
 Increase instruction time
class
 On-going progress
monitoring
 On-going progress
monitoring
 Flexible, small,
homogeneous groups
28
Chapter 4
EVALUATION OF THE MODEL IN TWO SCHOOLS
Two-year Implementation at Two Title I Targeted Assistance Schools
This chapter describes two separate two-year implementations of the model a presented
in the manual and summarizes the impact of the implementation. This evaluation involved Title I
schools in which the researcher was able to coordinate the schoolwide efforts in the application of
the model. Included are profiles of the school staff and student population, a calendar and
sequence of implementation, site state testing data, and forms that were used are described.
Participants
Two Title I Targeted Assistance Schools implemented this model for two years and were
located in a mid-sized city in the Central Valley region of California. Although the schools were
in the same district, the schools were significantly different in their student population and
amount of professional development received by the teaching staff in prior years. The first school,
where implementation took place during the school years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, will be
referred to as School One, and the second school, with implementation years 2007-2008 and
2008-2009, as School Two.
School One. School One was a low-income kindergarten through 6th grade school with
approximately 80% of its student population participating in the National School Lunch Program,
a free and reduced meal program with eligibility based on household income below a
predetermined poverty level. Thirty percent of the student population were English Learners
(ELs). This school was often considered the “black sheep” of a district in which most other
schools were predominately middle to upper middle income. Most of the low-income pockets
within neighborhoods inside the district boundaries were bused to this school, thus the majority of
students did not live in the area immediately surrounding the school.
29
Notably, there was a high turnover of principals. Otherwise, the staff at the school was
relatively stable and more than half of the teachers exceeded ten years at this site. The teachers
had extensive professional development during the preceding five years funded through the
Reading Excellence Act / Local Reading Improvement Grant, Title I, and School Improvement
Program (SIP). Despite intensive efforts towards school-wide improvement using literacy
coaches, trainings in instructional practices with an emphasis on direct instruction, the use of
diagnostic assessments, and academic conferences, by the 2004-2005 school year, the school was
in the fourth year of corrective action of program improvement status by No Child Left Behind.
In the event that another year of poor state test scores occurred, the school would face the
possible corrective action of being taken over by the state.
School Two. School Two was a kindergarten through 8th grade school that was
experiencing changing demographics. Formerly a middle to upper-middle income school, it
became a Title I school with steadily growing low-income and EL student subgroups. Unlike
School One, their students lived in the surrounding neighborhood, which was a mixture of highincome custom homes and low-income multi-family rentals. The aging of the multifamily
housing unites increased the amount of students on the free and reduced meal program to 40%
and the EL subgroup to 15%. Much of the teaching staff had over 10 years experience at this site,
with approximately one-third exceeding 20 years. In the previous few years, the professional
development days were devoted to a type of expanded staff meeting, with most of the time spent
reviewing changes in requirements from the district (such as benchmark assessments and new
curriculum) and school-related logistics concerning the scheduling of physical education (P.E.)
periods, music, recess, and assignments of instructional aides. The principal, in her sixth year as
administrator for School Two and a former reading specialist, expressed concern that the teaching
staff understood little about differentiated or explicit instruction. She was convinced that in prior
30
years, most students were from enriched homes and entered school with relatively high levels of
background knowledge and, in some cases, basic literacy skills. For this population, whole-group
instruction was adequate enough for students to perform well, and consequently, classroom time
had a significant amount of time devoted to independent work.
Implementation of the RtI Model at School One
In 2005-2006, a new Title I program aligned with the RtI process as presented in the
manual was implemented at this school. The researcher became the full-time Title I teacher and
was given the autonomy to structure the program in whatever way she felt was appropriate.
First year. During the first five weeks of school, planning for a Title I program was built
upon some key features already in place. The academic calendar already included testing
windows during which screening assessments were given. The staff followed a formal testing
protocol for those students not reaching benchmark, and subsequently lists of students considered
below grade level were created. Academic conferences (grade-level meetings) were scheduled
for an entire school day once during each trimester for the purpose of grouping students. The
student groups formed would receive instruction based on the level of that group during a 30-40
minute block of time four days a week known as “workshop.” Although this “workshop” was a
suggestion of the core language arts program, Open Court, (Bereiter, Brown, Campione,
Carruthers, Case, Hirshberg, Adams, McKeough, Pressley, Roit, Scardamalia, Stein,Treadway,
2002), this instruction was additional to the two or two-and-a-half hours required for core
instruction. Students were grouped across classes within the grade and sometimes within a grade
span (for example, grades 4-6 would share students).
Several changes were made to the pre-existing structure. First, instead of merely
grouping students based on reaching or not reaching benchmark, a data analysis focus was added
to the academic conferences. This data analysis focus was added in a highly structured,
31
sequential manner. This first major change was accomplished by assigning a facilitator who
would communicate to the grade-level teachers which assessments to administer, providing
guidelines for administering of assessments (to ensure consistency across classes), and suggesting
guidelines for pre-sorting or pre-analyzing assessment results. An agenda, which included
guiding questions to help analyze the data, was given to the teachers prior to the meeting.
During the academic conference, a timekeeper was assigned the responsibility making
sure the agenda was strictly adhered to. Students were grouped according to data, with
instruction plans based on what the data revealed about areas in need of instruction. This was the
second major change in giving deeper purpose to the academic conferences. In other words,
students were no longer just grouped into levels, rather instruction was planned for the group
based on the assessment results. The previous practice used a set “program” or curriculum for
groups of students deemed low, medium, or high (for example, Program A for the low students,
Program B for the middle group, etc.).
The schedules of the support staff were aligned with the schedule for workshop, thereby,
each grade level had an assigned time when the Title I teacher, instructional aides, and the
resource teacher would support their students. Importantly, by adding support staff to the gradelevel or grade-span workshop time, the number of possible instructional groups increased and the
group sizes decreased. This allowed instruction during workshop to range from intensive
intervention for the most struggling students to extensions/enrichment for advanced or gifted
students. Teachers were also recruited to provide instruction before or after school. These were
additional opportunities for direct instruction and were not the traditional “homework club” or
“come-if-you-need help” sessions. The needs of students requiring another layer of intensity or
extension of learning time were considered. Title I funds were used to pay teachers, and the Title
32
I program coordinated and monitored students’ attendance, snacks, transportation, and parent
permission.
Another significant change was the addition of instructional plans for all groups known
as “action plans.” The action plans included: (a) the names of students in the group, (b) the
quintile of the group (far-below basic, below basic, basic, proficient, or advanced) determined
either by benchmark cut-scores or teacher judgment, the target of instruction, (c) instructional
strategies and/or materials to be used, (d) the desired outcome, and (e) the method by which
progress would be measured. The notable difference initiated by the action plans was the
identification of the target of instruction and the assessment used for monitoring and, later,
debriefing progress.
Action plans also included follow-up dates between academic conferences so students
could be regrouped if necessary. This regrouping happened more frequently in the primary
grades where targets of instruction were more specific or defined by exact measures (for example,
decoding of specific spelling patterns or recognition of certain irregular sight words), and
readiness to move on could easily be determined by on-going assessments.
The subsequent academic conferences at the end of the next two trimesters began with a
debriefing component, during which instructional practices, appropriateness of student groupings
and materials, and, finally, student progress were discussed and reflected upon. Debriefing was
conducted in a structured and sequential manner using guiding questions and by following the
agenda. After debriefing, the remainder of the academic conference followed the same
beginning-of-the-year format: data analysis, student grouping, planning instruction, and writing
action plans.
Second year. The second year was conducted in much the same manner as the first with
some refinements. Attention was focused on issues noted during the first year as areas in need of
33
improvement. The first was scheduling. Music and P.E. teachers who rotated through the
different sites in the district made the schedules for classroom music, band, choir, orchestra and
P.E. Schedules were made at their discretion and the duration of these sessions were often 30-50
minutes. Sessions were scheduled by as many as four different people, and classroom teachers
rarely had input into the times assigned to them. An example of an actual scenario was a 6th
grade class that had P.E. scheduled for 50 minutes two times a week 45 minutes after the school
day started and then band and orchestra scheduled 30 minutes after students arrived back from
lunch. On these days, there was never a block of at least one hour that was uninterrupted by P.E.,
music, recess, or lunch. The 6th grade team not only had a difficult time scheduling workshop,
they had to piece together core instruction throughout the day. At the beginning of the second
year, in contrast, with the involvement of staff at the district level, the Title I teacher was allowed
to create the workshop schedule with input from classroom teachers whose job it was to preserve
core instruction time. The music and P.E. teachers had to work around this schedule. The
strategy for scheduling workshop was also organized to minimize transition time, often using a
recess, lunch period, or end of day as one end of either the beginning or end of the workshop
period to eliminate one transition. Students would report directly to or be excused directly from
their assigned location for workshop. This increased instructional time.
Professional development at the end of the first year, during the summer between the two
years, and continuing through the second year was coordinated through the Title I program and
were chosen based on identified needs after a one-year observation by the Title I teacher. This
included more training in data analysis, intervention, and frontloading, strategies in vocabulary
and expressive tasks for giving more access to core instruction for EL students and struggling
learners. The Title I teacher participated in all of the academic conferences for every grade level,
coordinated the before and after school instructional programs, and communicated frequently
34
with all staff including administrators and instructional aides. The Title I teacher oversight was
later determined as a key to the success of the restructured program.
A more coordinated effort between the Title I teacher and the special education resources
teachers allowed more flexibility in support of students. During the workshop period, if the
group for the Title I teacher were too large, the resource teacher would take some of the students,
generally, those students who were already under consideration for special education referral.
This also allowed the resource teacher to have valuable experience with these students enabling
her to make a recommendation for or against an assessment plan.
Implementation at School Two
First year. Since the school had just been designated as Title I, the Title I program
needed to be built from the ground up during the first year. Again, the researcher as the Title I /
EL resource teacher was allowed to structure the program in whichever way she felt was
appropriate. The major differences between the two schools were, in School Two, there were
fewer below-basic students and fewer EL students who needed support, and the teaching staff had
little profession development. The strengths of the school were the experienced special education
staff (one resource teacher and one speech/language therapist), who were highly skilled in
reading and language intervention, and the principal, who understood the phases of direct
instruction and had a strong background in reading instruction.
During the first two and a half weeks of school, the classroom teachers administered the
district reading assessments. These were assessments from the core language-arts program,
Houghton Mifflin, (Ackerman, Au, Chard, Garcia, Goldenberg, Lipson, Page, Templeton,
Valencia & Vogt, 2003), and consisted of a graded word list and leveled oral reading passage
with measures of rate, accuracy, retelling ability, and comprehension using several open-ended
questions. The teachers followed district and core program guidelines, but were not trained to
35
interpret scores. They used a district form for reporting passage levels and raw scores on
comprehension assessment. Another difference between School One and School Two was the
use of the Houghton Mifflin (Ackerman et al., 2003) language arts program. School Two and the
rest of the school district used this same core program, therefore, district benchmarks were set
using the assessments from the Houghton Mifflin (Ackerman et al., 2003) program. School One,
however, used a different language arts program, Open Court, (Bereiter et al., 2002) and was on
its own to determine which assessments to use as benchmark screens. This required the teachers
at School One to be more familiar with and have a better understanding of reading assessments.
School Two, on the other hand, had a staff that would often follow directives from the district
level but were never asked to make further determinations about students once the benchmark
assessment results were submitted.
Since the staff was not trained in the use of diagnostic assessments, the Title I teacher
used the benchmark assessments as screens for determining which students to assess further. All
of the far-below basic and below-basic students were further assessed and grouped for instruction
by the Title I teacher using non-Houghton Mifflin, (Ackerman et al., 2003) formative assessments
that informed instruction. Academic conferences were set, but each grade level was assigned to
only two-hour blocks of time.
Due to the limited amount of time for academic conferences and the lack of training of
the teaching staff in interpreting data, the principal and the Title I teacher structured the time for
the teachers to intensely look at all the students to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This
was done class by class, and student by student with the principal beginning the discussion with,
“Tell me about your students.” This was done to begin developing an understanding of which
teachers were using data to determine whether students were below-benchmark and which
teachers were tending to use more subjective measures. If teachers would say that a child is
36
“low,” the principal would follow up with, “Can you tell me why?” or “How did you determine
that?” Responses varied: “He’s only able to read the CD leveled passage and the other students
are reading the J level;” “Well, his parents always bring him late and he never turns in
homework;” or, “I had his brother and he never did well.”
This portion of the meeting allowed the principal to direct attention to the Title I teacher
who would then share the list of students who did not reach the benchmark by district measures,
and the information gathered engendered and then followed by further assessments with
diagnostic value. Results were explained in detail showing how assessments results translated
into targets of instruction, especially for low-performing students. The Title I teacher would
serve the lowest students in a pull-out model, and attempts were made to schedule the sessions
with little or no interruption to core instruction. The instructional plan, or action plan, was shared
with the classroom teachers. It was suggested that one of the grade-level teachers serve the group
of students in the next group higher from the lowest (usually the below-basic group) during an
extended-day session.
Using this format, several purposes were served. First, a baseline measure was made of
teachers’ current practices in determining which students were struggling. Second, a new model
for determining why a student was low by sharing results of diagnostic assessments was
introduced. Third, the goal of planning instruction based on assessments by identifying areas of
weakness, followed by making judgments about what should be taught first, and finally showing
instruction plans that specify using direct instruction strategies to teach the targets of instruction
were explained using real data on their own students. At this point, the main goal was to
introduce the process of using assessment to inform instruction and not to have teachers
implement the process.
37
Academic conferences continued in this format for the rest of the year with a significant
change made to the beginning of the session. The Title I teacher debriefed student progress by
sharing pre- and post-assessment results. During the year, the Title I teacher was added to the
student study team, which met in a problem-solving session with the classroom teacher, the
parents, and the administrator to discuss students of elevated concern. In prior years, all students
who struggled for multiple years were referred to the team for special education assessment
because no other option was available. The new protocol required struggling students to have
intervention by the Title I program before a consideration could be made about special education
testing. After intervention took place for at least two trimesters and attendance for the student
was satisfactory, the Title I teacher could make a recommendation for or against a special
education referral. The three-tiered model was introduced in this way.
Professional development began in the spring, and similar to School One program, the
Title One teacher was allowed to policy decisions regarding it. A frontloading training to
introduce strategies for providing more access to core instruction for EL students and struggling
students was scheduled in April with a follow-up session in August before school started. A
cadre of six teachers attended outside professional development to include direct vocabulary
instruction, comprehension strategies, and reading difficulties. The Title I teacher was also given
approximately 15 minutes on the agenda of every staff meeting to provide mini-professional
development sessions. Topics included understanding components of the core language-arts
program such as sound-spelling cards and decodable texts, assessments for identification versus
diagnostic purposes, and strategies for language development for EL students.
Second year. Some major changes took places at the beginning of the second year.
Similar to School One, where the workshop sessions were planned during academic conferences
and the workshop involved everyone at every grade level, a parallel structure was put into place,
38
in that instead of the term “workshop,” the period of targeted instruction was referred to as
“universal access” to agree with the terminology used in the Houghton Mifflin program. Again,
each grade level scheduled 30-40 minutes four times a week to provide instruction to groups of
students across classes. As much as possible, support staff worked their schedules around the
master schedule for universal access, the good begin again, to increase the number of
instructional groups and to decrease the numbers in each group.
As before, academic conferences were limited to two hours, but now several significant
changes were instituted: (a) the addition of an agenda with guiding questions and allotted
minutes, (b) establishment of norms for participation; (c) facilitation by the Title I teacher, (d)
grouping of students based on data, and (e) writing of action plans. The Title I teacher was
responsible for creating the agenda, keeping teachers focused and redirected, if necessary, and for
taking minutes and summarizing the session. In other words, the Title I teacher took on all the
roles used at School One to model the roles and to make the short meetings productive.
The plans for universal access included having the Title I teacher serve the lowest
performing students, while the rest of the grade level was broken down into quintiles. Often
some adjustments were made in the groups if group sizes were too large or too small. This was
accomplished by moving students in the group who were borderline high, up, and moving
borderline low students, down. Attempts were made to keep instruction as appropriate as
possible even with students moved to somewhat heterogeneous groups. The special education
resource teacher and speech and language pathologist served their students during the appropriate
grade-level universal access period. Plans for extended-day also continued, and this year as a new
policy to monitor whether direct instruction was taking place, teachers were asked to write
instructional plans for the sessions.
39
Another major change that occurred from the beginning of the second year was the
formation of the Academic Support Team. This was a problem-solving team that met once a
week for one to three hours. This block of time was scheduled into the master schedule before
the school year began, using the one morning a week when universal access was not scheduled.
The Title I teacher was the team lead and the purpose of the team and the meetings was to
monitor student progress and identify the type of support necessary to ensure success. This
might, for example, include moving the student to a more appropriate intervention group, making
contact with the home for home-related difficulties or needs, referrals to the school counselor for
behavioral issues, or coaching for the classroom teacher to support in-class instruction. Teachers
referred students to the team. This was mandatory before any other type of referral, most
importantly prior to a referral to the customary student study team when formal requests for
special education referral could be made. The team was quite successful in creating lists of
students to watch and for identifying the needs of the classroom teacher.
Results
Sources of Data
After two years of implementation at both schools, data was gathered from several
sources. State testing data was compiled through the use of the California Department of
Education website for testing and accountability. Two years of data prior to the implementation
of the RtI model are compared with results after the first and second year. The data include: (a)
the Academic Performance Index (API), a scaled score compiled through averaging individual
student test results; (b) Similar School Ranking, which compares 100 schools with similar
demographics; (c) percentages of students who score proficient (the state’s determination of grade
level) or advanced; and, (d) the subgroup scores for the low-socioeconomic students (students of
poverty).
40
The other measure included is the results of a survey completed by the special education
resources teachers at School One and School Two. Because one important goal of RtI is to
reduce the number of children who are identified as learning disabled, the impact of the model’s
application should present the observations of the special education staff.
41
Table 2
Four-year Comparison of State Test Results
School One
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06*
1
1
3
4
Schoolwide
614
669
694
712
Low socio-economic subgroup
583
640
672
703
Schoolwide
19.5%
26.4%
32.3%
34.3%
Low socio-economic subgroup
16.0%
18.7%
29.7%
34.6%
Similar Schools Rank
2006-07*
API
Students Scoring Proficient or
Advanced in English/Language Arts
School Two
2005-06
Similar Schools Rank
2006-07
2007-08*
2008-09*
2
5
7
7
Schoolwide
790
794
811
821
Low socio-economic subgroup
714
732
755
750
Schoolwide
50.7%
53.0%
55.8%
57.5%
Low socio-economic subgroup
38.3%
40.0%
46.9%
45.0%
API
Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced in
English/Language Arts
Note. * Years of implementation. Data collected from Ed-Data © 2009, Education Data Partnership.
42
Table 3
Special Education Resource Teachers’ Responses to Questionnaire
Question
School One
School Two
education for assessment decreased?
Yes.
Feels like it.
Were there fewer assessment plans signed?
Yes.
Do you feel that during the two years that we first
implemented a more coordinated support system
for students that the number of referrals to special
About the same.
If, so by approximately what percentage was
the decrease from the previous years?
20%
N/A
Special Education Resource Teachers Responses to Questionnaire
When responding to the questionnaire, both of the resource teachers offered elaboration.
The teacher from School One said the number of students that she served (referred to as her
“caseload”) dropped by 50% to 14 students during the second year of implementation. She
attributed the lower numbers to the interventions in place at the school. The small caseload of
special education students required her to work part-time at another school that had a waiting list
for students to receive services.
Although the number of students served by the resource teacher at School Two were not
significantly different, she said that “it ‘feels’ like I’m doing less assessment of student than
before we had Title I support, and I do feel that the teachers are more aware of teaching students’
needs because of targeted instruction [time] (universal access).” She went on to say further, “Part
43
of stress reduction I may be feeling is the support of an organized referral process, actual
intervention being done by general ed teachers, and having a team to discuss students.” She
believed that the numbers of assessment plans were unchanged because the school had
historically been one that honored parent requests for special education evaluation, and that these
direct requests were continuing.
Summary of the Results
In both schools where a two-year implementation of the RtI model was implemented, the
data revealed positive gains in student achievement. Table 1 in Chapter 4 presents these results
and the most significant finding is the increase in Similar School Rank. After the first year of
implementation, the ranking for both schools moved upward two deciles. The following year, the
gain was either maintained or continued upward. In Similar School Rank, a comparison is made
among 100 schools with students with similar demographics.
Both schools had significant gains in overall API after the first year: School One had
gains of 25 points, School Two, 17 points. The following year the gains continued, with 18
points for School One, 10 for School Two. Moreover, important gains were made in the API
scores of the low-socioeconomic subgroup. Many of these students were the recipients of the
most intensive intervention at both sites. After the first year, this subgroup at School One had a
gain of 32 points, and 31 points the second year. At School Two, 23 points were gained the first
year, but decreased 5 points the second (still representing a 16-point gain from two years prior).
In observations made by the special education resource teachers, School One had a 20%
decrease in the numbers of referrals. As previously mentioned, the caseload for the resource
teacher had a notable reduction of 50% of students with learning disabilities. At School Two, the
numbers were unchanged, but the resource teacher’s quote mentioned in the preceding section
gave testimony to the overall positive systemic change that occurred. In the case of School Two,
44
the resource teacher explained that the unchanged numbers in referrals may have been attributed
to external factors, specifically parent requests. The special education team at School Two was
well known with the staff and families throughout the school district and often had families with
special needs requesting placement at this school. District-level staff even chose this site for
special services. Therefore, spaces in this program were often filled as soon as they become
available.
45
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
As the researcher involved directly in the implementation of the model presented in the
manual, it is my conclusion that the use of the Title I program to coordinate the application of the
RtI process was essential to the overall success experienced at both schools. The features and
requirements of RtI and Title I aligned well, and the attention to planning was essential. The use
of academic conferences from which to plan instruction using data analysis and as a forum for
monitoring the progress of all students was the core of the RtI process in application.
Recommendations
In evaluation of the implementation, schools with Title I funding should consider a
restructuring of the program to incorporate the RtI process, keeping in mind the summary
presented suggest that positive gains in student achievement and increased teacher awareness of
students’ instructional needs can result. Both of these can break the cycle of students continuing
to be inappropriately identified as learning disabled.
46
APPENDICES
47
APPENDIX A
Manual: Implementing Response to Intervention in a Targeted Assistance Title I School
48
About this Manual
The interest in and attention to Response to Intervention (RtI) has soared since it was
specified in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA) in 2004. Without federal guidelines, states, districts, and individual schools were left on
their own to interpret how to implement the process. This manual presents a model well suited
for Title I Targeted Assistance schools to structure the delivery of RtI. It aligns well with Title I
requirements, optimizes spending of Title I monies for optimal student success, maximizes the
number of students Title I is able to serve, and helps reduce the number of children referred to
special education.
This model has been implemented in two different Title I schools and has shown impact
on student success as measured by California State Testing results and by the reduction in the
number of students referred for special education assessment. Although the two schools were in
the same district, they had different student populations: the first, a very low-income, high
English-learner school, and the second, a newly designated Title I school formerly middle to
upper-middle income. In both cases, growth was documented after the first year and continued
for a second.
The purpose of this manual is to provide suggestions by offering a structure for new Title
I programs or for current programs in need of reorganization to implement RtI. The goal of RtI is
to provide the appropriate instruction necessary to prevent severe reading difficulties in order to
distinguish between students who will respond well to instruction and those, because of a learning
disability, will not. This manual is meant to be a resource for the entire school staff, including
administration, support staff, classroom teachers, and after-school programs, to understand and
become an active participant in the process of RtI.
49
Section 1
Understanding Response to Intervention (RtI)
Background of RtI
The high percentage of students being identified as having specific learning disabilities (SLDs)
has generated questions about the effectiveness of the discrepancy model as the sole method of
identifying students eligible for special education services (U.S. Department of Education Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [OSERS], 2002). Using this traditional method,
students are often left in a “wait-to-fail” mode until enough of a discrepancy develops between
ability (IQ) and achievement. This approach does not always rule out factors that may place
students at risk for reading failure, nor does it require the prior use of interventions. Response to
Intervention (RtI) has been suggested as an alternative.
Framework for implementing RtI:

Universal screening

Defining the problem: diagnostic assessments and data analysis

Planning for targeted instruction

Progress monitoring

Documentation

Collaboration
What is Response to Intervention?
Response to Intervention (RtI), also known as Response to Instruction or Responsiveness
to Intervention, is a federal initiative that involves general education, special education, school
psychologists, reading specialists and coaches, Title I, speech-language pathologists, and other
school support personnel and programs (NASDSE, 2007). When the Individuals with Disabilities
50
Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in 2004, a provision allowed a change in the
identification process of students with SLDs. A response to instruction approach was specified as
a substitute for or supplement to the traditional ability-achievement discrepancy model.
RtI is not mandatory, nor does it prohibit the use of discrepancy models already in place.
Rather, IDEA 2004 encourages RtI as a better alternative in the best interest of student outcomes.
The structure of RtI is also closely aligned with the requirements of Title I program
implementation (Jackson, 2007).
RtI Features

Multi-step process with multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate learning.

High quality, research-based classroom instruction in the general education setting.

Early screening and early intervention (generally K-3). Universal screening of
academics, behavior, and attendance to determine which students need closer
monitoring or intervention.

Supplemental instruction that strengthens core instruction without supplanting.

Curriculum-embedded assessments to identify students who are not meeting
benchmarks or expected standards.

Focus on individual student needs based on data with intensity levels and duration
increasing if necessary.

On-going assessment during the intervention period to provide a cumulative record of
the learner’s response to the intervention.

Fidelity measures in place to ensure that the intervention was implemented as
intended and with consistency.
51

Collaboration between classroom teachers and support staff with all teachers
responsible for all students.

Parental involvement.
Why RtI?
RtI is an attempt to distinguish between the disabled and the disadvantaged by addressing
the overidentification of minority students for special education and preventing the
misidentification of students at risk for academic failure as learning disabled.
The majority of students in special education are identified because of a reading
disability. The underlying problem is that the discrepancy model fails to distinguish between two
broad possibilities in groups of children who have difficulties learning to read: (1) children with
lack appropriate reading instruction (those who require intervention), and (2) children with
reading-related cognitive disabilities (those who have a learning disability) (Vellutino, Scanlon,
Small, & Fanuele, 2006). The purpose of RtI is to separate these two groups.
It is not uncommon for minority and low-income students to be disproportionately
represented in the population of students identified as learning disabled (Donovan & Cross, 2002;
Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). Factors that may contribute to students being misidentified
can include lack of preschool, limited background knowledge, limited academic language,
interruptions in instruction due to mobility, and inappropriate or inadequate instruction, all of
which can place students at a disadvantage when learning to read. Since the 1960s, one major
attempt at reducing this achievement gap has been the federally funded Title I program.
Title I’s purpose is to offer additional academic help to low income and below
benchmark children; however, it is not an entitlement program. This means that students who are
eligible are not guaranteed services. Currently, it is estimated that only 50% of all students who
52
are eligible for Title I support actually receive it (Allington, et al, 2007). Funding also fluctuates
and does not ensure continued services for students who require additional intervention.
Consequently, a common practice that has been in place is one in which students who fail
in general education are frequently labeled as learning disabled, placed on hold while enough of a
gap develops between ability and achievement; this is known as “wait to fail.” After being
identified as learning disabled using the discrepancy model, services and funding for special
education are guaranteed. This approach has resulted in 10-20% of all children being labeled as
learning disabled.
What supports RtI?
Most studies that support RtI have a kindergarten through 3rd grade emphasis (Fuchs, D.
& Fuchs, L., 2005; Vellutino, et al., 2006). Specific research in 1996 by Vellutino et al. (2006)
on which RtI is partially based suggested the effectiveness of early intervention. The study was
conducted with kindergarteners and first graders, to whom highly individualized and
comprehensive interventions were provided to students below-average on literacy measures, in
other words, at risk for reading difficulties. Eighty-four percent of those students who were
originally at risk reached benchmark with just kindergarten and first-grade interventions; 73%
received kindergarten intervention only. This left only 1.5% of the total all students continuing to
be at risk and therefore needing further more specialized instruction. This gain was sustained
through fourth grade (the length of the study).
Other studies and RtI models already in place in many states and districts have shown the
need for early intervention in grades kindergarten through third. Early intervening services (EIS)
allows potentially at-risk students a better chance of catching up before the gap becomes too wide
to close easily. Universal and early screenings are essential in this preventive and proactive
approach.
53
What are the requirements?
Specific federal guidelines have not been set and interpretation of RtI is the responsibility
of states and LEAs (Allington et al., 2007; Batsche et al., 2007; National Joint Committee on
Learning Disabilities [NJCLD], 2005). However, there are two requirements: (1) research-based
strategies must be used, and (2) the instruction/intervention must be appropriate based on data.
Research based strategies are ones that have scientific research that support their effectiveness.
Appropriateness of instruction is based on assessment data that reveal needs that translate to
targets of instruction.
Unresolved issues.
There are still some unresolved issues concerning RtI such as: (a) Who delivers the
intervention.

Nature of the intervention.

How many lessons are sufficient.

How progress or response is monitored.

What type of responses are considered “non-responsive.”
What is an example of how RtI can be implemented?
An example of a very common approach is the three-tier model (NCRCLD, 2005; OSERS, 2002).
This model is based on the premise that all students need instruction, but that some students
require more. As you move upwards from Tier 1, the level of intensity increases with students
receiving more intervention time, more specific targets of instruction, and more individualized
instruction/tutoring through smaller groups or one-on-one. The following graphic helps to explain
this approach:
Tier I. The first tier is the foundation, with high-quality core instruction in the general
education classroom and includes early and universal screening. All students receive appropriate,
54
differentiated instruction. Those students who still fall below benchmark move up to Tier II, and
in general approximately 20% of the class will require intervention. If more than 20% fall into
this category, the quality of the classroom instruction should be considered.
Tier II. Tier II can be in the general education classroom, can be in a pull-out setting
(such as Title I), or can be in an extended-day program. Instruction is in a small group with
targeted instruction based on need. Interventions must be delivered with fidelity to rule out poor
interventions and inconsistencies. Students who perform poorly or do not respond to the
intervention received in Tier II move on to Tier III.
Tier III. This tier has highly intensive, individualized instruction that usually, but not
always, involves one-on-one tutoring. The length of each tutoring session is longer than those in
Tier II, or as an alternative, the intervention can be provided twice a day instead of just once, for
example, once during the school day and again in an extended day session. Generally, a referral
to special education or tutoring by the resource teacher is involved in Tier III.
Figure A1. Three-tier approach.
55
Figure 1. Tier I is the foundation with students working upwards as a greater instructional need develops. Percentages
of students in the three tiers located on the right are the most common guidelines.
The following table illustrates some of the features of the three-tier RtI model, Title I
recommendations, and some effective features of compensatory (support) programs that have
emerged from large-scale studies.
Figure A2. Alignment of Three-tier Approach and Program Features
Tier I
Tier II
RtI
Title I
 Universal screening
 High-quality core
instruction protected from
interruption
 Collaborative approach
between classroom teachers
and support staff
 Parental involvement
 Instruction appropriate
based on date with fidelity
 Identify eligible students
 High-quality core
instruction protected from
interruption
 Collaborative approach
with shared responsibility
 Parental involvement
 Acceleration of learning
Compensatory Programs
 High-quality instruction
 Collaborative approach
without shifted
responsibility
 Use of diagnostic
assessments and appropriate
56
measures
 Supplements, not supplants
 Supports core instruction
 Additional time for
intervention
 On-going progress
monitoring
 Flexible, small,
homogeneous groups
Tier III
 Supplements, not
supplants
 Strengthens core
instruction
 Minimal removal from
class
 On-going progress
monitoring
materials
 Supplements, not supplants
 Supports core instruction
 Increase instruction time
 On-going progress
monitoring
 Flexible, small,
homogeneous groups
 More individualized
 Possible special education
involvement
The model presented in the following section incorporates this alignment and
presents a step-by-step method for implementing an RtI process in a Title I program. The
entire school staff supports the effort of providing targeted appropriate instruction to all
students.
57
Section 2
Implementing the Model
Steps for Implementing the Model
The implementation of the model requires careful organization of the entire school year
and planning should begin before the school year starts. A coordinated effort among
administrators, classroom teachers, support staff, and extra-curricular teachers and programs
(such as, music, P.E., and after-school) is integral to the success of the RtI process. The steps
detailed here have been implemented and refined in two different schools for two years and in
both cases showed positive results after the first year.
Step 1: Decide on a communication system with the entire staff. If possible, determine
the best way to communicate with the entire staff, including support staff, paraprofessionals, and
after-school personnel, so that updates about the upcoming year can be explained to the staff
during the summer months when teachers are likely to begin planning for the new year. This can
be through e-mail, postal mail, automated phone messages, or whatever way is easily accessed by
all everyone who is involved. This will help all staff develop a “big picture” of the framework
and everyone’s possible roles in the process.
Step 2: Create an academic calendar. An entire school-year calendar should be set
before the school year starts. If this is completed and distributed before the first staff meeting of
the year, the staff will be able to have questions answered and the steps can be clarified. The
calendar should first identify major marking periods, such as the end of trimesters, report cards,
and holidays. Next, assessment windows should be scheduled at least three times during the year
(beginning of the year, end of the first trimester, end of the second trimester), and four times, if
possible, (add end of the year) with the major marking periods and district assessments aligned, if
possible. The district assessments can be used if they are appropriate. The assessment windows
58
should be at least two week long to ensure that the larger classes have enough time to complete
all of the assessments, especially if their classes require additional individual testing for belowbenchmark students. The first testing window is for screening purposes.
After testing windows are scheduled, grade-level academic conferences can be set
approximately one week after the testing windows close. The week between the two will give
teachers the time necessary to score, pre-analyze, and pre-sort the data. Academic conferences
can be a half-day or a full-day (depending on grade level size and funding for substitutes) and can
involve a single grade level (for example, 1st grade only) or grade spans (grades 4-6).
Determinations about meeting as a single grade level or grade spans would depend upon the
targeted instruction time that will be scheduled; if grade levels will coordinate targeted instruction
within their grade level, then only they need to meet, but if grades spans will share students, then
these grade spans should meet together.
The following academic calendar is only a sample, but includes the most important dates.
Additions could include dates for: submitting (to the administrator) the agendas for the academic
conference (approximately one week prior), due dates for actions plans and summaries written
during or after academic conferences, specific names of assessments and deadlines for submitting
the results, district requirements, parent conferences, academic support-team meetings, and topics
of the professional development sessions.
59
Figure A1. Sample academic calendar
August
September
H
PD
PD
AC: K
AC: 1st
AC: 2nd
AC: 3rd
AC:4-6th
School
starts
Screening Assessments
Assessments
October
November
1st
ends
AC: K
AC: 1st
AC: 2nd
AC: 3rd
AC: 4-6th
RC
Assessments
H
H
H
H
H
Assessments
December
January
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
February
March
AC: K
st
AC: 1
AC: 2nd
Assessments
H
AC: 3rd
AC: 4-6th
RC
Assessments
2nd 
ends
H
April
May
Assessments
H
H
H
H
Assessments
PD
RC
School
ends
PD
60
Note. Abbreviations are: AC = academic conference, PD = professional development,  = trimester, H = holiday, RC = report cards
Step 3: Form an academic support team. The purpose of this team will be to problem
solve all issues related to student success. The teams will meet weekly, if possible, and agenda
items will include referrals of students by classroom teachers, new or departing students, students
experiencing difficulties (academically, behaviorally, or socially), classroom teachers needing
support, and support programs. This team should include administrators and support staff (Title
I, special education, and counselor).
An academic support team lead should be designated, and this person will be responsible
for the planning and facilitating of the meetings. If the same agenda is used weekly, familiarity
with the format will enable to team to become quite efficient in it’s ability to address issues and
meetings will develop time efficiency. The use of a timer is also helpful.
Classroom teachers will send referrals to the team who will problem solve then offer a
suggestion to the teacher. For example, a new student to the school may appear to be struggling
academically. The teacher will report a profile of the student and what actions have been taken.
The team will either look further into the history of the student, put an intervention into place, or
request additional information. The student is then placed on the watch list if necessary, and
follow up will continue at subsequent team meetings. Every meeting has minutes written then
distributed to the team.
A referral to this team is a prerequisite to a formal Student Study Team (SST) during
which referrals for special education consideration can be made. The samples located in
Appendix B are an agenda, minutes, and student referral form. It is important that careful records
are kept of these meetings to monitor student progress schoolwide.
61
Form A1. Agenda for Academic Support Team Meeting.
Agenda for Academic Support Team Meeting
Date:
Attendees:
Facilitator:
Recorder:
Beginning Time:
 Debriefing of prior week’s action plans (10-15 minutes):
Title I:
EL:
RSP & Speech:
After-school program:
 New student referrals (20-30 minutes):
 New action plans (15-20 minutes):
 Other concerns (10-15 minutes):
Ending Time:
62
Form A2. Sample minutes of an Academic Support Team meeting.
Minutes of the Academic Support Team Meeting
Date: 10/24/2008
Attendees:
Facilitator:
Recorder:
Beginning Time: 8:30 AM
 Updates:
RSP & Speech:
Student 1, 8th grader, moving on Monday, 10/27/08
Student 2: 7th gr. Assessed 10/23/08 for language processing and vocab. Made good progress,
but motivation is still problematic (IEP on 11/07/08, 2:30). Proposal is to release from
Speech services. Continue support during 7th grade elective (small-group work w/___and __).
Student 3: Kdg. (Teacher: ____) 2-yr. history of speech services in preschool. Will be served
on a consulting basis w/Speech therapist
Student 5 (2nd gr. Teacher: ____): Qualified for Resource as of the end of last year (very high
in math, listening comp. okay, but major ADHD issues). RSP has not been able to make
contact with the mother to sign the IEP. After contact w/parent, RSP services will begin and
the possibility of retention will be discussed.
 New student referrals:
Student 7 (lst grade teacher:___) qualifies for Speech (leaves out pronouns and verbs; no
phonological or morphemic systems), served by Title I and counseling for anger
management. Making improvements in receiving criticism. Services in place and student will
remain on the watch list.
Student 8 (1st grade teacher: ___): UA group placement will be looked at for appropriateness
at the end of the trimester. Student will be placed on the AST watch list.
Student 9 (1st teacher: ___): Recommend SST to problem solve for behavior (not for testing).
Student 10 (K teacher: __): Lack of preschool and young age. If parent is willing, can
consider postponing kindergarten until next year. Otherwise, second year of K will be a
considered at the end of this year.
End: 10:10 AM
63
Note. Actual student names have been substituted with “Student 1,” “Student, 2,” etc.
Form A3. Student referral for to Academic Support team
Date:
Student:
Teacher:
Current Grade:
 Student here since grade
Birthdate:
 New
Reason for referral:
 Academic Concern (complete numbers 1-3)
1. What data supports the concern?

Below grade-level performance or lack of significant progress on the following assessments:
Assessments:
Dates
Scores:

Other data:
2.
Has an intervention been documented?
 Yes (complete the table)
 No
Person responsible
3.
Dates
Duration
Where is it documented?
Nature or type
Has the CUM been reviewed?  Yes (complete the following)
Group
size
Outcome
 No (Reason:
)
Attendance this school year:  Good  Fair  Poor (# of days missed ___/___)
Attendance in prior years:  Good  Fair  Poor (# of days missed ____/180, ___/180)
Health: Date of most recent vision exam
Results
Date of most recent hearing test
Results
Significant health issues/concerns:  No  Yes (Details:
 Behavior Concern
 Nature of problem:

What steps have already been taken?

Has the action plan been documented?  Yes  No
 Parent Contact  Phone  Correspondence  Meeting
Comments:
Dates:
)
64
Step 4: Create a master schedule that includes all grade levels. First, every class needs to
be assured that other school schedules will not impact core instruction. The recommendation is
that approximately 90 minutes of the two to two-and-a-half hours of core language-arts
instruction should be protected from interruption. This is referred to in some schools as “golden
hour” when all other schedules (such, as P.E., music, computer lab time, and library time) must
respect this period’s dedication to providing high-quality core instruction. Classroom teachers
can give their input for preferences in their schedules.
Next, the master schedule should attempt to set aside 30-40 minutes four to five days a
for every grade level for targeted instruction. In the core program Open Court, this is known as
workshop, and in Houghton Mifflin, universal access. Entire grade levels or grade spans will
separate students into instructional groups across classes to provide appropriate targeted
instruction. All support staff will make attempts to serve specific grade levels during this time so
the number of student groupings can increase and the number of students in each group can
decrease.
A sample is a master targeted instruction schedule follows and shows how a kindergarten
through 8th grade school can create a schedule and receive support from a Title I teacher, special
education resource teacher, speech and language pathologist, and paraprofessionals.
65
Figure A2. Sample schedule for targeted instruction.
School Year ______
Master Schedule for Targeted Instruction
Time
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
8:00-8:30
K
K
K
K
8:35-9:15
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
9:20-10:00
4th/5th
4th/5th
4th/5th
4th/5th
10:05-10:35
1st
1st
1st
1st
10:40-11:20
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
Friday
Academic
Support
Team
Meeting
Assessment
Assessment
Lunch
12:00-12:40
Assessment
6th
6th
6th
6th
12:50-1:40
7th (5th
period)
7th
(5 period)
7th (5th
period)
7th (5th
period)
7th (5th
period)
no 6th period
(minimum
day)
8th (6th
period)
8th (6th
period)
8th (6th
period)
8th (6th
period)
1:40-2:30
th
Note. Assessment blocks are for special-education assessments, on-going assessments, or core assessments.
The Academic Support Team can schedule weekly meetings if targeted instruction is four days per week.
Step 5. Create guidelines for test administration. To maintain consistency in identifying
students as below benchmark, it is important to that the same assessments are administered in the
same manner. This requires grade levels, or grade spans if they are sharing data, to set protocols
in giving directions to students, prompting, accepting answers as correct or incorrect, and cut
scores for benchmarks. If, for example, one teacher provides a significant amount of prompting
66
when a students doesn’t answer a question, and another teacher simply marks an item incorrect
when there is no response, the two scores may lose its value when compared. A grade-level
meeting that will review all assessments to be given and the guidelines that will establish
consistency will ensure appropriate grouping of students.
Grade levels will also need to determine cut scores for determining whether students are
at benchmark for that period in the year. Considerations about the developmental sequence of
reading acquisition are particularly important to keep in mind in the primary grades. Most
published assessments will be accompanied by recommendations and these will help in
establishing benchmark.
A testing protocol also needs to be established for students not reaching benchmark
measures. The score of not reaching benchmark will identify those students are needing
instruction, but a testing protocol for using diagnostic assessments to determine why the student
is low is the next step. For example, a 1st grader cannot read a middle of the year text passage,
therefore a testing protocol would require a phonics skills test, an irregular sight word test, and if
warranted, an oral blending and segmenting assessment. These types of protocols need to be
established so teachers have a clear direction to follow in identifying areas of instructional need.
The following recording sheet helps teachers see at a glance possible areas for instruction
and where the student is in relation to the benchmark. It is also helpful when referring a student
for support to be able to see all scores over the course of a year.
67
Form A4. Sample recording sheet to guide testing protocol for kindergarten
Student:
Teacher:
Grade: Kindergarten
Date
Assessment
Letter Names:
End-of-Year
Beg
/26
Mid
/26
End
Benchmark
Approaching
/26
24
20
<30 seconds
<36 seconds
24
17
<34 seconds
<40 seconds
Upper Case
Time
Lower Case
Time
Letter Sounds:
Upper Case
Time
Lower Case
Time
Phonemic Awareness
Oral Blending
9/10
6/10
Oral
7/10
4/10
4/13
2/13
9/10
7/10
Segmenting
Decoding
Short Vowel
Words
(CVC)
Print Concepts
68
Step 6. Plan and conduct academic conferences. Academic conferences are gradelevels, or grade-span (if grades share students), meetings during which teachers are focused on
data to group and plan targeted instruction for all students. Because the quality and
productiveness of these meetings are essential to the success of implementing the RtI model, the
section that follows is entirely devoted to describing in detail the entire process.
Step 7. Plan and conduct targeted instruction periods. These are periods of the day
outside of core instruction during which all students receive appropriate instruction with specific
targets that address their instructional needs. These are planned during academic conferences so
details about targeted instruction periods (sometimes referred to as “workshop” or “universal
access”) will be included in the section on academic conferences.
69
Section 3
Planning and Conducting Academic Conferences
Description
After each of the three or four scheduled testing windows, grade levels or grade spans
may find it beneficial to meet for a longer, more involved team meeting to discuss and analyze
data and create instructional plans for the upcoming trimester. These instructional plans, known
as, “action plans for differentiated instruction,” may apply to an entire class or just be used for
targeted instruction periods, small-group differentiated instruction during a daily or four-day-aweek additional period of 30-40 minutes outside of the core language-arts block.
Described earlier in this section, targeted instruction periods are cross-class or crossgrade platooning, which has shown to work well in some schools implementing the RtI model.
Academic conferences would be an ideal time to create intervention plans for students who are at
or below benchmark, as well as create plans for enrichment and acceleration for abovebenchmark students. All students will receive targeted instruction based on assessment-revealed
needs. During planning, it is important to remember to schedule this additional differentiated
instruction at the same time in each class and support program that will be involved.
Materials
The following forms (located in Appendix B) can help sites plan for, organize, and
implement academic conferences and optional cross-class or cross-grade platooning:

Planning and Academic Conferences: a timeline and outline for organizing

Agenda for Academic Conference: a format of the meeting with essential
components

Checklist for Organizing Academic Conferences

Action Plans for Differentiated Instruction : specific plans for targeted instruction
70

Debriefing Form for Action Plan for Differentiated Instruction: a summary of
student performance based on a previous action plan

Individual Student Post Reports: Documentation of intervention for student records
Steps To Prepare for an Academic Conference
There are several important steps in the planning and organizing process. See the planning
sheets created for reproduction in the section that follows in Appendix B.
Step 1 - Scheduling meeting times. Academic conferences can be scheduled on a minimum
day, or may be as long as an entire school day. Some districts and sites have set aside funds to
provide release time in order for a whole grade level or for grade level spans to meet. As
mentioned earlier, one approach is to schedule academic conferences into the site’s academic
calendar, generally put together just before the school year begins. Testing windows for reading
assessments should also be included in this calendar with the team meetings scheduled
appropriately, ideally, the week following administration of assessments. Timing of district
assessments and core program summative assessments should also be considered when choosing
dates for the academic conferences to optimize the use of available data.
Step 2: Schedule a pre-meeting. A short planning meeting will be necessary to make
decisions that will establish the purpose of the academic conference. Some teams may prefer
memos or e-mails, but a group discussion may be more valuable so an exchange of ideas and an
initial look at trimester goals and data can occur. This will also be the time to clarify details and
protocols for assessment administration.
Step 3: Create an agenda. This agenda will be agreed upon by all participants prior to the
trimester team meeting and should be adhered to during the meeting. It will state the language
arts areas and related academic goals to be considered, role assignments, group norms, and
sequence of instructional planning. A sample follows:
71
Form A5. Agenda for academic conferences.
(Complete numbers 1-3 and distribute this at least one week prior to the scheduled date.)
Grade Level:
Scheduled Date:
Meeting Location:
Start Time:
End Time:
Participants:
1. Literacy Component:
2. Assign roles: (These roles are to be rotated during the year.)

Facilitator (see Form B):

Time Keeper:

Record Keeper:
3. Establish norms:
4. Use the Guiding Questions for Data Analysis
5. Decide on implications for instruction
6. Meeting Wrap-Up

Dates are confirmed for the next trimester team meeting and grade-level team
meetings.

Recorder collects all completed forms.
72
Step 4: Assign roles. In order for the academic conference to run smoothly and to
accomplish its goal in a specific time frame, it is imperative that participants of the team meeting
take on team meeting roles. It is critical that the same members of the team do not take on the
same role at every team meeting. Rotating roles at every meeting ensures that this truly is a
collaborative effort and will build capacity for leadership and decision making within the grade
level or grade span. Rotating roles are:

The facilitator is responsible for planning and notifying all team members about the
specific details concerning the academic conference: time, place, and required
materials (including assessments, summary sheets, and resources). The major duty is
to lead the team through the agenda during the meeting.

The timekeeper helps team members stay within the time frame determined by the
agenda by monitoring time on topic and adherence to the established norms. A
stopwatch may be used to help limit discussions off topic or side conversations. It is
the responsibility of the timekeeper to determine and address the group when the
agenda or the norms are not followed.

The record keeper takes notes on the discussions and decisions made during the team
meeting and writes any ideas or strategies that are suggested in a place where it is
visible by all participants, for example on a whiteboard. After the meeting, the
record keeper writes a summary based on the notes, and distributes copies of the
summary and completed forms to all participants.
Step 5: Establish norms. Agreed upon group norms will contribute to the success and
productivity of team meetings. The norms should be as specific as possible, but still be
applicable to all team members rather than directed towards individuals. The norms should be
posted during the team meeting and monitored. Examples of specific norms are:
73
 Follow the agreed-upon agenda.
 Complete the tasks of assigned roles.
 Stay focused by limiting off-topic discussions (specify amount of acceptable time).
 Be respectful by listening before responding.
 Participate in discussions that are whole group rather than between individuals.
 Limit phone use, copying, and e-mailing to break times.
Step 6: Complete assessments. The most useful data is current, representing students’
response to present instruction. Therefore, assessments should be administered as close to the
scheduled meeting date as possible. For practical purposes, this might be the week before the
meeting in order to allow adequate time for administering, scoring, recording, and sorting
collected data. Examples of assessments can include reading assessments, district assessments,
core program assessments, writing samples, or pre/post-tests and assessments used to monitor
progress for intervention.
Step 7: Complete individual student recording sheets and whole-class summary sheets
prior to the meeting: The data collected should be recorded, sorted, and pre-analyzed before the
meeting. This is done to maximize time available for discussing and making instructional
decisions and for creating instructional plans. The utilization of the individual student recording
sheets, whole-class summary sheets, and Excel spreadsheets will help facilitate and streamline
this process. The recording and summary sheets will be helpful in evaluating progress for the
current and possible past school years. Consider having the actual assessments available during
the meeting even after all data has been recorded and sorted. This provides an opportunity for an
in-depth look if this should be necessary. It is also important for support staff who might serve
particular students to have the chance to view or make copies of assessments. Also, creating
74
homogeneous groupings of students can be accomplished by simply sorting assessments into
various piles.
Step 8: Complete debriefing forms for action plans for differentiated instruction. Unless
this is the first academic conference of the year, action plans for differentiated instruction would
have been written for groups or whole classes of students to be implemented during the previous
trimester. The action plans for differentiated instruction state the goal and target of instruction
with specific pre- and post-tests to determine progress and effectiveness of instruction. Post-tests
must be given at the end of the instructional period with results recorded on the “action plan
debriefing form” This form will document whether the individual students and the group as a
whole were successful in reaching the instructional goal. For individual student records, such as
records which follow a student from school to school, a copy of an individual student post report
can be completed in order to document the intervention received. This would be especially
important for students who are below benchmark or who have a history of mobility, and can also
provide the documentation for RtI. Samples of these forms are in Appendix B.
Conducting the Academic Conference
Getting started. The facilitator will follow the agenda during the academic conference,
with the timekeeper and recorder active in their roles. It is suggested that the meeting begin by
the facilitator revisiting and stating to the group:
 A summary of the agenda including the purpose of the meeting with specifics about the
instructional focus and goals and the timeframe;
 The role assignments;
 The agreed-upon norms (now posted);
 The documentation that will be completed (such as action plans for differentiated
instruction).
75
Following the agenda and guiding questions. By following the agenda, the team meeting
will use the guiding questions as they examine the collected data to determine students’ current
knowledge, diagnose needs, and to develop instructional plans based on these. The following
steps are for the beginning-of-the year trimester team meeting and notes about subsequent
meetings follow
Step 1: Focus on literacy skills: This is the focus on a specific component of literacy
skills and related instructional goals. Determinations about these can be made by such
considerations as trimester benchmarks (both previous and upcoming), the scope and sequence of
the core language arts program, and the benchmarks set by the district, site, or grade level. A
pacing guide may have been created that will guide decisions about timelines for instruction,
monitoring of approaching mastery, and mastery of the component. Depending on the grade level,
the range within this component may be narrow or broad, or may involve more than one
component in order to address all student needs, especially when planning instruction for belowbenchmark or advanced student groups.
Step 2: Assessments. While a significant amount of student assessment data may be
available to help evaluate student performance in general and provide a basis for an initial sort,
the data that will be most useful to inform instruction, is, of course, that which specifically
assesses the literacy component that is being focused upon. The literacy component may need to
be divided into subcomponents to allow a more focused analysis. Testing protocols may help
with this, determining during administration what might need further assessing. The key
questions to ask when looking at data are: Is this a good measurement of the literacy component?
How well does it measure the literacy component?
Step 3: Organization of data. Using individual student recording sheets, whole-class
summary sheets, the actual assessments, or computer assisted programs, begin to arrange the data
76
based on the component. A benchmark score or other indication of mastery will help initially sort
students into two broad categories: those reaching the benchmark and those not. You may also
look at the recording sheets or the actual assessment and color-code or highlight areas where
students have not met the benchmark.
Step 4: Data Analysis. The color-coded or highlighted recording sheets or assessments
may reveal patterns in areas that students are proficient or not proficient. Begin to closely
examine the patterns that emerge concerning areas where students are not proficient. Note areas
of need. Keeping these in mind, answer the guiding questions for data analysis:
 What do students know?
 What don’t students know?
 What do they need to know next?
 What would be an appropriate target of instruction?
Step 5: Instructional Grouping. Your goal is to group student with the same diagnosed
need. You may be planning instruction for an entire class or you may sort further, possibly color
coding, until there are a number of small groups. Some schools find it useful to create five
groups (quintiles) of far-below basic (intensive), below basic (strategic), basic (benchmark),
proficient, and advanced, but note that grouping by overall reading ability may not address the
different reasons why students are below grade level. Cut scores for each quintile may need to be
discussed or, in some cases, they may be predetermined by the district. Based on the
performance of all students, some gaps may occur between groups and a quintile may be missing.
For example, there may be no students who fall in the below basic category. The number of
groups created may also be dependent upon the number of personnel available during the period
when instruction will be delivered. Remember to consider having support staff schedule at this
time so that all students will be receiving appropriate differentiated instruction.
77
Step 6: Goal setting. Instructional goals will need to be determined for each group of
students. You should set reasonable but somewhat ambitious goals that will move below
benchmark and benchmark students towards proficiency, and challenge proficient and advanced
students with depth and complexity. The number one rule is that these goals must be measurable.
They should also be specific. Weigh short and long term goals with attention to pacing, trimester
benchmarks, and standards. What do you want students to be able to do at the end of the
instructional period?
Step 7: Differentiated instructional planning. Begin completing the action plans for
differentiated instruction by incorporating all of the decisions made up to this point. In general,
the instructional period will consist of roughly 8-12 weeks of instruction when holidays, special
events, etc. are excluded from the trimester. The forms include: target of instruction, names of
students (the instructional grouping), strategies/materials to be used, time allocated (ideally daily,
but no less than 3 days per week, person responsible for providing the instruction (classroom
teacher or support staff), group size, where and how the instruction is delivered, how progress
will be measured (pre- and post-tests and on-going assessments), and follow-up meeting dates to
discuss progress.
Step 8: Monitoring and evaluation. Scheduling frequent grade-level meetings is
important to discuss how students are responding to instruction. These dates should be decided
upon to ensure that teams meet regularly to monitor student progress. Adjustments can be made
at those times to the action plans based on student needs as shown by on-going assessments.
Step 9: Prepare for work with paraprofessionals. If paraprofessionals are involved,
complete action plans for the group of students that they will work with and be specific about the
objectives and the timeframe for completion. Provide explicit written instructions explaining how
78
to perform all tasks. Provide training, if necessary. Decide on an effective way to communicate
with the paraprofessionals
Step 10: Concluding the meeting. After all action plans for differentiated instruction have
been written, the recorder will collect these and be responsible for making copies for everyone.
The recorder will also compose a summary and distribute these as well sometime during the next
few days.
Subsequent Academic Conferences
At the end of the instructional period, the pre- and post-tests and on-going assessments
will be examined to complete the action plan debriefing forms. This will document whether the
group and whether individual students met the goal that was set. It will ask important questions
that will help guide instruction during the next instructional period:

Who are the students that are not responding to the intervention, especially when
compared to similar peers? Should they move to the next tier?

What was successful about the strategy/ies that achieved positive results?

What problems were encountered?

What needs to be done to make future instruction more effective?
Record sheets from frequent team meetings should also be reviewed.
Through the process of focused data analysis meetings, lists of students who are not
responding well to instruction that is appropriate for their specific instructional needs will be
generated. The documentation during the different tiers of service will be key in making decisions
about these students if their academic struggles continue.
79
Form A6. Planning and conducting academic conferences
Two weeks prior:

During a grade-level team meeting, begin discussing the focus for the next instructional
period. Support staff, such as coaches, the reading specialist, Title I and RSP, should be
included in this meeting.

Make decisions about pre- and/or post assessments directly related to that focus.

One week prior:

As a grade level or grade span, complete 1-3 on a trimester team meeting agenda and make
sure everyone is clear about their assigned roles.

Distribute copies of the agenda to all grade-level or grade span teachers, to the principal, and
to all support staff involved.

Review the guiding questions for data analysis.

During the week prior:

Complete all assessments and organize the data by completing recording/summary sheets.

After initial analysis of the data, determine an appropriate target of instruction and gather
ideas and resources to bring to the trimester conference.

Review trimester benchmarks, the ELA standards, and core program sequence.

Complete the debriefing forms, if applicable.

Conducting the trimester team meeting:

Bring all assessments and the data recorded, organized, and pre-analyzed.

Bring resources to share with the grade level or grade span.

Bring updated student records.

Post the norms.

Work through guiding questions for data analysis to make decisions about instruction.

Complete action plans for differentiated instruction.

During the week following:

Distribute a summary of the trimester team meeting and all action plans for differentiated
instruction to all participants.

If paraprofessionals are involved, meet with them and explain how the next instructional
80
period will be organized and what their duties and responsibilities will be.
Form A7. Checklist for organizing an academic conference
Checklist for Organizing an Academic Conference
1. Meet with your grade level team prior to the academic conference to
discuss the following:

Determine the focus (literacy component) for the next trimester.

Determine which assessment(s) will be completed and brought to the
academic conference by all team members.

Assign roles: facilitator, timekeeper, and record keeper. (Remember,
these are rotating roles.)

Establish a meeting place, starting and ending time for the
academic conference. (Please include this information on
your agenda.)
2. Create an agenda based on these decisions, and distribute copies to every
grade-level team member, to the principal, and to all support staff involved.
3. Items to bring to the trimester team meeting: the agenda, individual student
recording sheets, whole-class summary sheets, assessments, resources and
materials that are appropriate for the focus, updated student records, and
calendars.
4. Have these materials available on the day of the academic conference:

The agenda

The agreed-upon norms for posting

Copies of blank action plans and other necessary forms

Reading/Language Arts Framework for California

Teacher editions of the language arts core program

District benchmarks

Pacing guides

A list of resources available for intervention or extension
81
appropriate for the grade level or site
82
Section 4
Understanding the Model
Focusing on Data
The focus on data during academic conferences is integral to planning appropriate
instruction and is key to successful implementation of the RtI model. Therefore, an entire
section was devoted to providing a structure to these meetings in order to make them
productive and keep them centered on data. Merely grouping students of similar abilities is
not sufficient. Rather, defining the instructional need and providing direct instruction must
be part of the overall instructional plan.
Debriefing after instructional intervention is important as it serves several purposes.
First, it identifies, for the benefit of the entire grade-level team, those students who made
significant progress from those who did not. Second, this allows an opportunity to review
and evaluate the strengths and/or weaknesses of various intervention techniques in student
groups of various learning abilities. This process will then allow the greatest opportunity to
ensure that the most appropriate instruction is being delivered in the most effective way.
Careful Scheduling
The importance of creating a master schedule before the school year begins allows
all support staff to be a part of every grade level’s periods for targeted instruction. The
addition of teaching staff increases the possible number of student groupings while
decreasing the number of students in each group. This allows greater flexibility in the
placement of students and gives them multiple opportunities to demonstrate learning at an
appropriate level. If the schedules of the support staff are not aligned with the grade level’s
targeted instruction period, students being served by these teachers or programs may also
83
miss valuable core instruction. Therefore, careful scheduling maximizes core instructional
time and appropriate supplemental instruction.
Documentation
A significant number of forms are located in Appendix B. This will help continue a
focus on data and helps make determinations about students’ learning patterns more obvious.
Historical documentation will be an important part of determining in the future whether a student
is a candidate for a referral to special education.
Targeted Instruction for All Students
The preceding sections help plan targeted instruction for all students and not just for
struggling students. This provides the opportunity for all students to reach their potential and
develops schoolwide achievement.