Response to Intervention:
Paradigm shift in
assessment practices
Kevin L. Buehler, Ph.D., NCSP
Response to Intervention Consultant
Knox County Schools
Activity
Write your biggest frustration about the
definition of a learning disability.
Generate a solution to that frustration.
Frequently Mentioned
Frustrations regarding LD
1. Students who don’t meet the LD criteria
but continue to struggle academically
2. Students who do meet the LD criteria are
not identified early enough
3. Students who struggle have to be
labeled to receive classroom assistance
Solutions
1. Use different criteria
2. Identify students earlier
3. Provide effective interventions for all
students who need classroom assistance
Easier said than done!
However, these
premises are
the basis of the
response to
intervention
model.
Identify
Early
Different
LD Criteria
Effective
Interventions
What’s wrong with the
discrepancy model?
For students with word reading deficits, there are
few meaningful differences between IQachievement discrepant poor readers and IQachievement consistent poor readers
Under the discrepancy model, one student
qualifies for special education assistance, and
the other does not, despite having similar
reading achievement
The importance of early
intervention
National Institutes of Health (1999) study:


If students are not reading at grade level by the third
grade, the odds that they will ever read at grade level
are only 1 in 17
By the 4th grade, 2 hours of specialized daily
instruction is required to make the same gain that
would be obtained from only 30 minutes of
specialized daily instruction in kindergarten
Impact of Effective Interventions
LD Students and RTI/Intervention
Students R-CBM Growth
Rate of Increase
1
0.8
0.6
0.84 0.81
0.78 0.78
0.62
0.61 0.58 0.57
0.53
RTI/Intervention
Students
0.4 0.3
0.2
0
1
LD Students
2
3
Grade
4
5
RTI Model
LD Criteria do NOT include a discrepancy
requirement
Students get help early within the regular
education setting
At-risk students are provided with
research-based interventions
Presentation Objectives
1. Discuss the foundations of RTI
2. Review RTI model
3. Discuss the primary assessment component of
the RTI process: Curriculum-Based
Measurement
4. Review general implementation suggestions
5. Describe specific KCS procedures
6. Review KCS implementation data
7. Review available resources
8. Answer questions
Foundations of RTI
Theoretical Foundation
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
5-10%
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
5-10%
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Legal Foundation
RTI was proposed in IDEA 2004 as an
alternative method for identifying LD
students because of the following:
Over-identification of LD students
Problems with discrepancy model of identification
A lack of specific scientific, research-based
instruction/intervention prior to referral
A disproportional number of minority placements
Special education regulations
(IDEA)
Determination of Eligibility: “a child must not be
determined to be a child with a disability … if the
determinant factor for that determination is … lack of
appropriate instruction in reading [or] math.”
34 CFR § 300.306
LD procedures: “State … must not require the use of a
severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and
achievement for determining whether a child has a
specific learning disability”
34 CFR § 300.307
The discrepancy model for identifying LD is considered
“potentially harmful” to students
Implication
States cannot mandate the use of the
discrepancy formula for identification of LD
AND they must permit the use of RTI
models.
IDEA regulations
… underachievement in a child suspected of
having a specific learning disability is not due to
a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or
math by considering:
1) Data that demonstrates that prior to, or as a part of, the
referral process, the child was provided appropriate
instruction in regular education settings, delivered by
qualified personnel; and
2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal
assessment of student progress during instruction, which
was provided to the child’s parents.
34 CFR § 300.309
Implication
Students cannot be identified with a learning
disability without documenting numerous
attempts in regular education to meet their
needs using scientific research-based strategies
Student progress must be monitored
Progress data must be provided to parents
* Note: Regardless of the method of identification
for LD (discrepancy or RTI), a response-tointervention-like process is required prior to
certification.
Issues Not Addressed in IDEA
The federal regulations do not offer
specific guidelines regarding how to
implement RTI.




How long should the interventions last?
How many tiers, or levels, of interventions
should be done?
Who conducts the interventions?
How is progress defined and measured?
Specific Texas regulations
(i) data that demonstrates the child was provided
appropriate instruction in reading (as described
in 20 USC, §6368(3)), and/or mathematics
within general education settings delivered by
qualified personnel; and
Specific Texas regulations
(ii) data-based documentation of repeated
assessments of achievement at reasonable
intervals, reflecting formal evaluation of student
progress during instruction. Data-based
documentation of repeated assessments may
include, but is not limited to, response to
intervention progress monitoring results, inclass tests on grade-level curriculum, or other
regularly administered assessments. Intervals
are considered reasonable if consistent with
the assessment requirements of a student's
specific instructional program.
Specific Texas regulations
I) does not make sufficient progress when
provided a process based on the child's
response to scientific, research-based
intervention (as defined in 20 USC, §7801(37)),
as indicated by the child's performance relative
to the performance of the child's peers on
repeated, curriculum-based assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting
student progress during classroom instruction;
or
Specific Texas regulations
(II) exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses
in performance, achievement, or both relative
to age, grade-level standards, or intellectual
ability, as indicated by significant variance
among specific areas of cognitive function,
such as working memory and verbal
comprehension, or between specific areas of
cognitive function and academic achievement.
Research Foundation
Reading Research




When students get behind in first grade it is hard for
them to catch up
Intensive scientific research-based interventions are
needed for struggling readers to catch-up
Growth in reading fluency requires a lot of accurate
practice
Struggling readers do not get enough accurate
practice
Research Foundation
Reading Research



A student at the 10th percentile reads about 60,000
words a year in 5th grade
A student at the 50th percentile reads about 900,000
words a year in 5th grade
Average students receive about 15 times as much
practice in a year
Research Foundation
Effectiveness of LD programs for students
identified using the discrepancy model has been
low:





Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading
growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate
it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)
Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to
move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek,
1998)
Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates
can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.
Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)
It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the
difference.
Research Foundation
Using the discrepancy model:



Children must fail before they can be identified as LD,
with identification typically occurring in grades 3-5
IQ and academic achievement are not independent;
so difference scores are unreliable (which results in
poor reliability and validity of classification)
Is not supported in research in terms of prognosis or
cognitive profiles
Research Foundation
Traditional Assessment






Medical model (diagnostic purpose)
Deficit oriented
Child centered (one at a time)
“Wait to fail”
Refer-test-place
Focuses on diagnosis rather than prevention
Alternative to IQ-Achievement
Discrepancy Model
Defining LD as severe deficit in:
Achievement Level AND
 Rate of Academic Progress

Defining LD in terms of
a dual deficit
LD is defined as non-responders (low
achievement and poor progress) to validated
scientific research-based instruction
RTI eliminates poor instructional quality as a
viable explanation for a learning disability
Assumption: If a child does not respond to instruction that is
effective for the vast majority of students, then there is
something different about the student causing the nonresponse
Assessment paradigm shifts
Move from refer-test-place to assessmentintervention-evaluation practice
Move from high inference measures to low
inference measures
Move from static (one shot) testing to dynamic
(continuous) progress monitoring of response to
intervention
RTI model
RTI Model
A process where at-risk students are provided increasing
levels of intervention prior to consideration for LD
Seeks to determine what instructional supports are
needed to solve student achievement problems
Eliminates a “wait to fail” model because at-risk students
get help promptly within the regular education setting
Intended to address problems with the discrepancy
model of identifying students with LD
Essential Components of RTI
1.
Universal screening
2.
Multiple tiers of intervention
3.
Progress monitoring
4.
Problem-solving or standard protocol approach
5.
Integrated data collection/assessment system
6.
Scientific research-based interventions
Universal Screening
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is
the recommended tool to identify students
who are at-risk (have low academic skills)
and require interventions
CBM is a technically sound and thoroughly
researched progress monitoring system
Universal Screening
CBM:








Is a standardized test
Is given to everyone
Measures critical skills
Is brief
Can be repeated frequently
Is inexpensive and easy to administer and score
Provides data to assist with decision making at the
individual student, class, school or district level
Tells us what students are “at-risk” and need
supplemental instruction/intervention
Multiple Tiers of Intervention
Levels of intervention with increasing
frequency &/or intensity from one tier to
the next. Some recommend 2 tiers and
some recommend 3.
3 Tier Model
Special
Education
Consideration
Intensity of Intervention
HIGH
LOW
Tier III
Increased
Interventions
Tier II
Supplementary
Interventions
Tier I
Core Curriculum
Monitoring Frequency &
Degree of Unresponsiveness
HIGH
Tier guidelines
Each tier of intervention builds on the next.
In other words, supplemental intervention
in each tier adds to the student’s core
curriculum instruction.
Progress Monitoring
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is
the recommended tool for measuring
student response to the intervention.
Progress Monitoring
The purpose of progress monitoring is to
take frequent measures of a student’s
performance to determine whether he or
she is making progress in response to the
intervention.
Why Not Pre and Post Test?
Pre-Test
(10 Weeks)
?
Post-Test
Problem Solving or
Standard Protocol Approach
Problem Solving

A process that uses the skills of professionals
from different disciplines to develop and
evaluate intervention plans that improve
significantly the school performance of
students
Problem Solving or
Standard Protocol Approach
Standard Protocol

A standard set of interventions available to
students when they enter the RTI process
Problem Solving or
Standard Protocol Approach
Combined

Using a standard set of interventions, but
using a problem-solving team to individualize
those interventions
Integrated Data Collection /
Assessment System
AIMSweb, DIBELS, etc.


Benchmark Data Collection
Progress Monitoring
Scientific, Research-Based
Interventions
Interventions that address academic
deficits must be available in general
education settings
Progress monitoring methods must be
incorporated into general education
Scientific, Research-Based
Interventions
Employs systematic, empirical methods
Involves rigorous data analyses
Relies on methods that provide reliable data
across settings, subjects, and evaluators
Uses experimental or quasi-experimental
designs
Allows for replication of the study
Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal
or panel of independent experts
34 C.F.R. 300.35
What Are Interventions
Targeted assistance based on progress
monitoring
Administered by classroom teacher, specialized
teacher, or external interventionist
Provides additional instruction



Individual,
Small group,
and/or technology assisted
Interventions are NOT
Preferential seating
Shortened assignments
Parent contacts
Classroom observations
Suspension
Doing MORE of the same / general classroom
assignments
Retention
Peer-tutoring
Scientific, Research-Based
Interventions
Example of computerbased intervention:
Destination
Reading/Math
Example of teacher
directed small-group
intervention:
Scott Foresman Early
Reading Intervention
The primary assessment
component of RTI:
Curriculum-Based
Measurement
What is CBM?
Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM,
is a method of monitoring educational
progress through direct assessment of
academic skills. CBM can be used to
measure basic skills in reading,
mathematics and written expression, as
well as readiness skills.
CBM History
CBM was developed more than 20 years ago to
assist in assessing students’ achievement
CBM was originally used to assess growth and
development in students’ specific curricula
(these measures lacked validity and reliability)
Research has shown CBM can be used across
varied curricula, schools, teachers, and school
districts in a standardized fashion
History, cont.
CBM has evolved to measure achievement and
assist teachers in the following ways:


Providing immediate feedback regarding
where students are functioning within the
class
Providing appropriate standards of growth
and development across varied curricula
What is a probe?
When using CBM, the examiner gives the
student brief, timed samples, or "probes,"
made up of academic material taken from
the expected skills for the particular grade
level.
How are probes given and scored?
CBM probes are given individually or in
groups (depending on the probe), under
standardized conditions, are timed and
typically last from 1 to 6 minutes,
depending on the skills being measured.
The child's performance on a CBM probe
is scored for speed, or fluency, and for
accuracy of performance.
Video example
What do probes look like?
Reading R-CBM
This student read 72 WRC/8 Errors
Reading Comprehension Maze
15 correct
with 1 error
Universal screening
Given to everyone
Tells us which students are “at-risk” and need
supplemental instruction/intervention (becomes
a referral source in addition to teachers and
parents)
Crucial to the RTI process (Provides data to
assist with decision making at the individual
student, class, school or district level)
Tool should be a general outcome measure
What CBM is and is Not
CBM is considered a General Outcome Measure
CBM is designed to function as an “indicator” of
academic skills (academic thermometer)
It is NOT intended to represent all skills
associated with a particular domain such as
reading
CBM probes are considered formative
assessment tools that can be used to inform
instruction
Summative vs.
Formative Assessment
Summative assessment occurs after instruction
Example: “High Stakes” testing
Conducted infrequently
Does not provide teachers with ongoing
assessment data
Answers the question, “Did the students learn?”
Summative vs.
Formative Assessment
Formative assessment occurs during instruction
Example: CBM probes
Conducted frequently
Provides teachers with immediate feedback on
student performance
Answers the question, “Are the students
learning?”
CBM-Formative Assessment
Dynamic—measures are designed to be
sensitive to short-term effects of
instructional interventions
Measure fluency, which is more sensitive
to change than accuracy
As a result, CBM probes are useful for
progress monitoring
Advantages of CBM
Provides frequent “checks” of achievement
over time
Indicates student growth over time and
across academic years
Assists teachers in making decisions
about instruction or grouping
Can be used to document need for special
education consideration
How CBM is used in KCS
In order to collect local norms, CBM probes are
administered three times per year (fall, winter, and
spring) for grades K-5 in all elementary schools
CBM probes include the areas of early literacy, early
numeracy, word identification, reading, and math
computation skills
Data are available immediately after testing
Classroom teachers help administer CBM probes
School operates under a “testing mode” which changes
the school schedule to provides a quiet testing
environment for students
How CBM is used in KCS
Intervention Mentors & School Psychologists review
data with school staff after testing
Individual student profiles provide teachers and
parents frequent updates on academic growth
This allows us to judge how any individual student in
KCS compares to other students at that grade level
This also allows for continuous monitoring of student
progress in special education and regular education
In addition, class, school, and district comparisons can
be made
Screening for RTI
Students below the 10th percentile are identified
as “at-risk” using CBM benchmark data.
Once a student begins the RTI process, CBM
data are used to monitor progress weekly to
gauge student response to the intervention.
Growth rates from progress monitoring are
compared to the minimally average (25th
percentile) growth rate for a student at that
grade level using district norms
At some point, “at-risk” could be defined as the
percentile that predicts non-proficient status on
high-stakes tests
Interpreting CBM scores
Box and Whisker Charts
90th
75th
25th
10th
Interpreting CBM
What is an appropriate achievement level?

at-risk range may be defined differently in different
districts
What is appropriate growth?

Adequate improvement may be defined differently in
different districts
Interpreting
Progress Monitoring Data
4-Point Rule - If 3 weeks of instruction
have occurred and student has at least 6
data points, examine the most recent 4
consecutive scores.


If all 4 scores fall below the goal line, a change
in instruction is recommended.
If all 4 scores fall above the goal line, a goal
increase is recommended.
Interpreting
Progress Monitoring Data
Trend analysis - If 3 weeks of instruction
have occurred and student has at least 6
data points, examine the trend of the
scores.


If the trend line is below the goal line, a
change in instruction is recommended.
If the trend line is above the goal line, a goal
increase is recommended.
What is a good response to an
intervention?
GOOD RESPONSE

Gap is closing
(Can extrapolate a point at which student will “catchup” to peers—even if this is a long range target)
QUESTIONABLE RESPONSE


Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably,
but gap is still widening
Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
POOR RESPONSE

Gap continues to widen with no change in rate
RTI Implementation
Suggestions
Start with Basic Components
Universal Screening – Develop local norms
Tiers – Determine how many tiers of
intervention will be used and length of each tier
Interventions – Determine which interventions
(scientific, research-based) will be used
Progress Monitoring – Determine method of
assessing response to intervention
Personnel – Determine who will complete the
interventions and assessments
Define Procedures
CBM normative criterion – define at-risk
ROI criterion – define poor improvement
Intervention(s) to be used
Progress monitoring tool and frequency
Intensity of intervention
Frequency of intervention
Duration of intervention
Fidelity requirement
Remember
Full implementation of RTI will likely take
3-5 years, depending on the size of the
school district.
It is best to implement RTI in stages.
Progression of KCS
Implementation
May, 2003 - brought in Gary Germann
from AIMSweb to train a core group of
regular education and special education
personnel on the CBM Benchmark
process
2003-2004
6 elementary schools conduct CBM
benchmarking
2004-2005
14 elementary schools conduct CBM
benchmarking and use interventions
2 additional elementary schools conduct
CBM benchmarking only
2005-2006
7 elementary schools use RTI process in
grades K-2
26 elementary schools conduct CBM
benchmarking and use interventions
6 additional elementary schools conduct
CBM benchmarking only
2006-2007
12 elementary schools use RTI process in
grades K-5
24 elementary schools conduct CBM
benchmarking and use interventions
12 additional elementary schools conduct
CBM benchmarking only
2007-2008
43 elementary schools use RTI process in
grades K-5
7 additional elementary schools conduct
CBM benchmarking only
Specific Knox County
Procedures
Knox County’s RTI Model
1. Local norms collected three times per year
2. At-Risk students identified using CBM
Benchmark measures
3. Computer software programs and scripted
reading program interventions available
4. Intervention intensity progressively increases
through 3 tiers and student progress is
monitored frequently
5. Response to intervention is reviewed by school
staff to make appropriate decisions
Knox County’s RTI Model
Intensity of Intervention
HIGH Student CBM above at-risk range
Positive response – exit process
LOW
Special
Education
Consideration
Tier III
At least 4 - 60
minute
sessions/week
Tier II
At least 4 - 30 minute
sessions/week
Tier I
Core Curriculum
+ Classroom
Interventions
Monitoring Frequency &
Degree of Unresponsiveness
Student CBM within the
at-risk range
AND below average ROI
HIGH
What is Student Compared To?
District Norms
Individual School Norms (for specific schools)
Class Norms/Ranking

In other words, the lowest 2 or 3 in the class would be
considered for suspected LD
Parent Consent
The process is based on general education
instructional procedures
Parent consent is NOT needed to participate in
the RTI process
An evaluation for special education
consideration has NOT been initiated during
RTI, so evaluation timelines do not apply
A learning disability is NOT suspected until
after the intervention process has been
completed
Fidelity of Interventions
In order to say a child has not responded to an
intervention, the intervention MUST be
conducted EXACTLY as prescribed.
Another way to look at this issue is to imagine
the intervention process as standardized testing.
We would want to know that children were
tested in accordance with standardized
procedures. It is the same with using response
or non-response to interventions.
Tier I
Criterion: CBM score within the at-risk range (using
district or school norms) with record review and teacher
validation
Intervention: core curriculum + classroom
interventions
Progress Monitoring: 1 time/week
Intensity: determined by Intervention Team
(15 minutes/session recommended)
Frequency: determined by Intervention Team
(3 sessions/week recommended)
Duration: 6-8 weeks
Parent Notification: every 4 weeks
Tier II
CBM Criterion: CBM score within the at-risk range
(using district or school norms)
ROI Criterion: Rate of improvement is below average
Intervention: supplemental to the core curriculum
Progress Monitoring: 2 times/week
Intensity: 30 minutes/session
Frequency: At least 4 sessions/week
Duration: At least 8-10 weeks
Fidelity: 40 sessions within 60 school days
Parent Notification: every 4 weeks
Tier III
CBM Criterion: CBM score within the at-risk range
(using district or school norms)
ROI Criterion: Rate of improvement is below average
Intervention: supplemental to the core curriculum
Progress Monitoring: 2 times/week
Intensity: 60 minutes/session (can be provided in two
30 minute blocks)
Frequency: At least 4 sessions/week
Duration: At least 9-12 weeks
Fidelity: 45 sessions within 60 school days
Parent Notification: every 4 weeks
Tier II vs. Tier III
The only difference between Tier II and
Tier III is the intensity of the intervention
treatment.
Important Points
If a student does not make progress at Tier III,
we can feel confident the suspect the student
has a learning disability if exclusionary factors
are ruled out.
Because this process has the potential to be the
basis for LD certification, it is imperative that the
interventions be carried out with fidelity.
Documentation of intervention sessions is
required.
Frequency of Tier III
While scheduling two 30-minute blocks of
intervention a day may be difficult,
remember that until a child can read, he or
she will be unable to do most academic
tasks. Thus, remediation of reading
difficulties should be the focus.
What about Written Expression
and Math Reasoning?
Classroom intervention of 6-8 weeks in area of
concern must be done with weekly progress
monitoring
Discrepancy testing is used at all schools and
data is used in conjunction with response to
interventions
Special Education Evaluation
In the RTI process, LD is not suspected until after all three
tiers have been completed with poor response.
Once LD is suspected, an evaluation is done to rule out MR
and other exclusionary factors. Informed consent is
obtained for the evaluation and timelines (40 school days)
now apply.
The IEP Team reconvenes after the evaluation to write the
IEP if all exclusionary factors are ruled out.
Special Education Evaluation
The eligibility determination team may find that a
child has LD if:


(1) Child does not achieve adequately for his/her age
or to meet State-approved grade-level standards,
when provided with appropriate instruction; and
(2) Child does not make sufficient academic progress
when using RTI (or other alternative method using
research-based interventions) or exhibits a pattern
of strengths and weaknesses (discrepancy formula);
and
Special Education Evaluation


(3) The eligibility determination team rules out
exclusionary factors.
(4) LEA must ensure that the child is observed in
the regular classroom setting (or other
appropriate learning environment). This observation
can be done prior to the referral (if “routine”), or after
the referral (with parent informed consent).
34 C.F.R. 300.310
Exclusionary Factors
The eligibility determination team may not
identify a child as having a specific learning
disability if the low achievement is primarily the
result of:







(1) A visual, hearing, or motor disability
(2) Mental retardation
(3) Emotional disturbance
(4) Cultural factors
(5) Environmental or economic disadvantage
(6) Limited English proficiency
(7) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math
Evaluation
Evaluation will be done that includes:

(1) Measure of cognitive ability
(Possible use of brief measure)

(2) Measure of achievement in area(s) of concern

(3) Other components agreed upon by IEP team
Procedures for Below
Average Students
Below Average Students
Students within the 10th to 24th percentile
range on CBM benchmarks or progress
monitoring probes
Can receive interventions if Intervention
Team decides it is necessary
Strategic Monitoring
Provides a way to monitor the progress of
students within the below average range
Results are shown on the individual
benchmark chart
Provides a rate of improvement after each
monthly assessment
The Benefits
Teachers have feedback on student
progress available to them on their
AIMSweb accounts
Intervention Team receives input on how
the student is responding and can make
decisions accordingly
Student does not have to repeat a Tier
Reevaluations at RTI
Schools
How does the RTI process impact kids
already eligible?
What happens to students who exit the
RTI process?
Is the gap closing between the student’s
performance and typical grade level
performance?
If the student’s response is poor, should
we keep the student in the program?
If the student’s response is good, can we
transition to a Tier 3, 2, or 1?
LD Reevaluations
Student who continues to fall within
the at-risk range in area of eligibility:

No need to re-test unless other disability is
suspected
Students within the below average
range on grade level:


Place on special education consultation only for 912 weeks to determine if performance can be
maintained at or above 10th percentile
Interventions at the RTI level of Tier II or Tier III
may be provided
Student maintains performance
within the below average range:

Decertify because needs can be met within
general education
Student drops to the at-risk range:

Maintain eligibility because student continues to
need special education services for success
Student scores within the average
range:


No need to re-test
Student should be decertified because
student no longer has an academic deficit
KCS Implementation Data
Data Analysis
Do we identify same type of students?
How many of the students in Tier 1
progress to Tier 2, Tier 2 to Tier 3, etc?
Does the percentage of LD students
increase/decrease?
Knox County Schools Response to
Intervention Data Analysis
2006-2007 school year
RTI Piloted in 12 elementary schools in grades
kindergarten through 5th grade (6324 total student
population).
464 students were provided services through the
program
Each student’s progression through a tier during the
school year generated a separate student record. For
example, if a student completed three tiers there would
be three records on that individual student.
683 intervention records were developed
Numer of Records
Number of Records per Grade Level
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
163
160
126
94
72
68
K
1
2
3
4
5
Grade
562 records in reading (82%) and 121 records in math (18%)
13 of the records (2%) were for students that exited the tiers
and then needed to be re-entered
53% of the students in which a decision was reached
successfully exited Tier I
2006-2007 RTI Schools Tier I
(12 schools)
47%
53%
Successful Exit
Higher Tier
46% of the students successfully exited Tier II
2006-2007 RTI Schools Tier II
(12 schools)
54%
46%
Successful Exit
Higher Tier
27% of the students successfully exited Tier III
2006-2007 RTI Schools Tier III
(12 schools)
27%
73%
Successful Exit
Higher Tier
82% of “at-risk” students successfully exited the RTI process
2006-2007 RTI Schools Total
18%
Successful Exit
82%
Referred for Evaluation
Through this RTI Model, 31 students were found to be eligible for a learning
disability (29 in basic reading skills, 11 in reading comprehension, and 1 in
math computation).
Seventeen of the 31 students (55%) would have been eligible under the
previous discrepancy model. The average “Best Measure of Ability” score
was 94.8 with a standard deviation of 8.3 (Minimum Score, 80; Maximum
Score, 114)
RTI Eligible Compared to Discrepancy
Eligible
Eligible by
Discrepancy
45%
55%
Not Eligible by
Discrepancy
Online Resources
 What Works Clearinghouse
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
 Learning Disabilities Summit
http://ldsummit.air.org/
 National Center on Student Progress Monitoring
http://www.studentprogress.org/default.asp
 Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts
http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/
 Florida Problem Solving & Response to Intervention Project
http://floridarti.usf.edu/
 Florida Center for Reading Research
http://www.fcrr.org/
 RTI Wire
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php
 Intervention Central
http://www.interventioncentral.com/
Audience Questions