Response to Intervention for Higher Education:
The UWF School of Education Model
The School of Education in the College of Professional Studies has as its goal the
professional preparation of elementary, middle, and exceptional student education pre-service
and in-service teachers. Accordingly, the School of Education has an oversight role in teacher
preparation and development of academic competencies of prospective teachers pursuing a major
within the many departments of the College of Professional Studies. Toward that goal, emphasis
is placed on the preparation of personnel for educational careers through professional
development programs which are current and relevant in theory and practice.
In recent years, the K-12 public school systems in many states have begun to implement
the Response to Intervention (RtI) model as a new way to respond to the instructional needs of
their students. RtI emphasizes two equally important areas of effort: (1) the examination of the
learning environment and how it might be contributing to the student’s academic struggles, and
(2) the use of instructional strategies and interventions in an increasingly intense, systematic way
to facilitate the academic success of struggling students. The challenges and needs of students in
higher education are clearly different from those in the K-12 setting, yet the principles of RtI can
be adapted to assist at this more advanced level of learning.
Developing the UWF RtI Model occurred over the course of several years, as faculty and
staff in the School of Education worked to adapt the K-12 model to serve the purposes
mentioned above. Along with developing the model itself, a way in which to facilitate the
model’s functioning was identified; that is, the use of an existing assessment software program,
Tk20, was found to be a way in which faculty could easily create referrals and data could be
gathered from those referrals for analysis and to inform decisions made at various levels.
1
The School of Education defines professional development as a continuous process of
improvement to promote high standards of academic achievement and responsible citizenship for
all students. A goal in Teacher Education is to provide students with the tools needed to become
successful teachers. The School of Education’s RtI process promotes an atmosphere of
prevention and support through its tiered system, using data to improve courses, programs, and
procedures and to support candidates who are struggling to meet content and disposition
standards and competencies. Please refer to the RtI flowchart included as Appendix A.
The RtI mediation process commences according to the following “triggers” (see the
Sample Referral Form included as Appendix C):

when a faculty member or advisor notes a student is having a problem with his or her
course early in the semester;

when the student demonstrates a need/problem in general knowledge and/or basic skills,
including GPA and professionalism issues;

when a faculty member or advisor notes the student lacks proficiency in subject matter
content;

when a student has not successfully met key assignment expectations;

when a student has received less than a C-, an I, or a W in a course;

when a competency in the State of Florida, Department of Education mandated Educator
Accomplished Practices has not been met;

when the student fails to meet dispositional expectations or the Ethical and Professional
Standards of Conduct expected for the Education Profession in Florida.
The faculty member/advisor notes the student’s performance need(s) and completes a
referral (see Instructor Directions included as Appendix B). The student is then contacted by the
2
Director of Teacher Education Student Services (TESS) and advised to contact the instructor of
the course in question in order to identify an appropriate remedy for the particular concern(s).
The instructor in question is also required to perform a review to determine if there are any
course and or assignment adjustments that should be considered. As RtI is a tiered process,
students may expect an incremental increase in the level of remedy or intervention based on the
duration and or frequency of the deficiency. At the conclusion of the semester in which the
referral was created, the instructor provides information to determine whether the referral should
be considered resolved or not.
The data generated by the RtI process for higher education is seen as a valuable tool for
program and course review and evaluation (see data tables and graphs included as Appendix D,
E, F, and G). Academic advisors can use this data as one of their tools as well as they seek to
find the “best fit” for students from among the many choices that there are for their academic
success. Having access to the referral database allows all who interact with our students both
academically and in an advising capacity to have a clearer idea of that student’s needs and areas
that require improvement. As a part of the UWF School of Education’s commitment to the
teaching profession, it is incumbent upon its faculty and administration to have its graduates be
performing at expected levels and beyond with respect to teaching skills and dispositional
domains.
3
Appendix A
UWF School of Education RtI Process
(rev. 3/3/11)
Red Flags
Submit
Referral Form
Yes
Tier 1
Initial Investigation
 Compare student
results with
other students
 Contact student
 Contact Advisor
Is this an isolated
incident?
Yes
Instructor
Addresses
Problem
No
Instructor
Determines
if Systemic
or
Individual
Systemic
Individual
Resolved
Possible Interventions
Assess the course, re-teach
material, and add additional
resources
Not Resolved
Tier 2
Support Plan developed by Support Team
Student Remediation/Tutoring
Interventions (e.g., meeting with student)
Resources (e.g., writing lab, Disability
Center on campus)
Submit
Referral
Form
Systemic
Aggregated
data to SoE
Director
Candidate
Transition
Point
Review
(TESS)
Seek Consultation
 School of Education
Director
 ATC
 CUTLA
 Peers
 UWF Support
Progress Monitoring
Resolved
Not Resolved
Submit Referral Form
Tier 3
PDP Committee for Intensive Intervention
Director/Associate Director of School of
Education
Advisor
Non-Referring Faculty
Student
Resolved
4
COPS Academic
Standards Committee
Not Resolved
Appendix B
1. On your home screen, select the Advisement tab.
2. Select Students on the left side of the screen.
3. Enter student name, then select search at bottom.
4. Click on student name at bottom of screen.
5. Select Notes tab.
6. Select Add New (or click on existing note to review).
7. Enter RtI as Title and select Remediation as Type of Note.
8. Scroll down to Remediation heading.
9. Complete the following:
1.1 Step 1
1.2 Step 2
1.4 Step 4
10. At bottom of screen, select Add for new or updated referral,
select Cancel if simply reviewing.
11. Director of Student Services (DSS) completes 1.3 Step 3 and
alerts instructor to review feedback summary.
12. DSS completes 1.5 Step 5 and indicates Resolved /
Not Resolved
13. Resolved = DSS monitors student through the following
semester.
14. Not Resolved = Tier
5
Appendix C
RtI Referral Form
Step 1 (basic information)
Student Name:
Instructor Name:
Course:
Campus: (P’cola, Online, EC)
Undergrad/Grad?
Step 2 (select items that apply; briefly describe the concern)
Knowledge Acquisition
 Failure to grasp fundamental course concepts despite appropriate engagement and participation; at risk
of failing
Emotional Demeanor
•
Demonstrates inappropriate behavior for the context
•
External locus of control
Professional Behavior
•
Dishonest or deceitful behavior (academic integrity, research integrity, etc.)
•
Fails to exercise discretion in oral/written communication
•
Insensitive to diversity
•
Unresponsive or inappropriate to instructor support, feedback, and/or interventions
Preparation
•
Work completed with little attention to quality and/or learning
•
Assignments are chronically late or missing
•
Comes unprepared to class/on-line session (no text, class materials, hasn’t read, etc.)
Participation
•
Inattentive in class
•
May distract others or disrupt learning with behaviors
•
Inadequate or inappropriate participation in group activities/class discussion
Communication
•
Uses incorrect grammar in oral and/or written communications
•
May use slang, profanity, inappropriate vocabulary, or offensive language
•
Does not express ideas clearly
Attendance
•
Exhibits a pattern of absence and/or tardiness
•
Fails to contact instructor to make up missed work
•
Sometimes disrupts class by arriving late/leaving early
•
Fails to comply with attendance policies described in the syllabus
Brief Explanation of Concern (<200 words)
Step 3
Advising summary of feedback from other instructors
Step 4
Action taken by instructor after student referred to instructor via advising email (<200 words).
Step 5
Progress Note(s)
Resolved / Not Resolved
6
Appendix D
RtI Referral Data Table Fall 2010
Major
Elem
ESE
Mid
EdSt
Other
Total
%
Course Type
or Advising
Online
F2F
Advising
Total
Year
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Masters
N/A
Total
Knowledge
Acquisition
8
8
0
0
6
22
32.4
Emotional
Demeanor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Professional
Behavior
4
3
0
0
0
7
10.3
Preparation
Participation
Communication
Attendance
Advising
4
6
0
1
5
16
23.5
2
4
0
0
1
7
10.3
0
1
0
1
0
2
2.9
0
2
0
0
0
2
1.3
9
10
0
1
1
21
27.5
57.4
10.3
32.4
20
2
0
22
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
7
13
3
0
16
4
3
0
7
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
4.4
47.1
48.5
0
0
2
16
4
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
7
0
6
10
0
0
16
0
1
6
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
n
25
28
0
2
13
68
%
36.8
41.2
0
2.9
19.1
39
7
22
68
3
32
33
0
0
68
Note: A referral may be made for more than one category/trigger per student.
Resolved category updated: 7/6/11
7
Resolved
n
19
23
0
1
13
56
Resolved
% of 56
34.0
41.0
0
1.8
23.2
0
0
21
21
33
5
18
56
58.9
8.9
32.2
1
9
11
0
0
21
2
26
28
0
0
56
3.6
46.4
50.0
0
0
Appendix E
RtI Referral Data Table Spring 2011
Major
Elem
ESE
Mid
EdSt
Other
Total
%
Course Type
or Advising
Online
F2F
Student Tchg
Advising
Total
Year
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Masters
N/A
Total
Emotional
Demeanor
1
5
0
0
0
6
8.3
Professional
Behavior
3
8
0
1
0
12
16.7
Participation
Communication
Attendance
Advising
%
36.1
44.4
1.4
5.6
12.5
100
Knowledge
Acquisition
2
1
0
0
1
4
5.6
Preparation
n
26
32
1
4
9
72
15
14
0
2
7
38
52.8
2
1
0
1
0
4
5.6
0
2
0
0
0
2
2.8
0
0
0
1
3
4
5.6
13
10
1
1
1
26
26.8
39
7
3
23
72
54.2
9.7
4.2
31.9
100
1
1
2
0
4
4
0
2
0
6
5
2
3
2
12
32
5
1
0
38
4
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
2
3
1
0
0
4
6
28
34
2
2
72
8.3
38.9
47.2
2.8
2.8
100
1
1
2
0
0
4
1
1
4
0
0
6
1
4
7
0
0
12
4
14
17
1
2
38
0
1
3
0
0
4
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
4
Note: A referral may be made for more than one category/trigger per student.
8
Resolved
n
16
18
1
3
8
46
Resolved
% of 46
34.8
39.1
2.2
6.5
17.4
1
2
2
21
26
24
5
0
17
46
52.1
10.9
0
37.0
1
12
13
0
0
26
2
18
22
2
2
46
4.3
39.1
48.0
4.3
4.3
Appendix F
RtI Referral Data Table Cumulative*
Major
Elem
ESE
Mid
EdSt
Other
Total
%
Course Type
or Advising
Online
F2F
St. Tchng
Advising
Total
Year
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Masters
N/A
Total
Knowledge
Acquisition
10
9
0
0
7
26
18.6
Emotional
Demeanor
1
5
0
0
0
6
4.3
Professional
Behavior
7
11
0
1
0
19
13.6
Preparation
Participation
Communication
Attendance
Advising
19
20
0
3
12
54
38.6
4
5
0
1
1
11
7.8
0
3
0
1
0
4
2.6
0
2
0
1
3
6
4.3
22
20
1
2
2
47
33.6
55.7
10.0
2.1
32.2
21
3
2
0
26
4
0
2
0
6
9
3
3
4
19
45
8
1
0
54
8
3
0
0
11
3
0
1
0
4
3
1
0
2
6
5.7
42.9
47.9
1.4
2.1
3
17
6
0
0
26
1
1
4
0
0
6
1
5
13
0
0
19
4
20
27
1
2
54
0
2
9
0
0
11
0
1
3
0
0
4
0
3
1
2
0
6
n
51
60
1
6
22
140
%
36.4
42.9
0.7
4.3
15.7
78
14
3
45
140
8
60
67
2
3
140
*Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Note: one referral may have more than one indicated trigger.
9
Resolved
n
35
41
1
4
21
102
Resolved
% of 102
34.3
40.2
1.0
3.9
20.6
1
3
2
41
47
57
10
0
35
102
55.9
9.8
0
34.3
2
21
24
0
0
47
4
44
50
2
2
102
3.9
43.1
49.0
2.0
2.0
Appendix G
RtI Graphs
10
11
12
13