This is the opportunity to have nationally renowned, experienced implementers and/or researchers answer your questions. We know RTI can be confusing at times, which is why we've lined up some of the most knowledgeable people to help. Send us your questions for an in-depth, informative answer. Check below for answers to frequent questions.

• Should interventions in Tier 2 and Tier 3 follow the alignment of the core curriculum?

  Response from Karen Wixson, Ph.D.: The general answer to this question is "yes"—Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions should be aligned with the core curriculum.  However, this also assumes that the core curriculum covers the areas needed by the students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. It is conceivable that there might be a need for differences between Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions and the core curriculum. For example, a core curriculum that is narrowly focused on foundational skills might not address all of the areas in which struggling students may need work if they are to make good progress, which would call for Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions that go beyond the core curriculum. Conversely, Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions may need to address foundational skills that are no longer part of the core curriculum at more advanced age/grade levels. In general, however, a good rule of thumb is that Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions should not involve terminology, content, skills, strategies, tasks, materials, etc. that are inconsistent with those of the core curriculum. This is likely both to promote learning and to help avoid confusion.

• When implementing RTI, is there a recommended ratio of students to teachers at different tiers of intervention?

  Response from Amanda VanDerHeyden, Ph.D.: The feature that distinguishes one tier of intervention from another is intensity. Tier 1 intervention is typical instruction to which all students in the class are exposed (often called universal or core instruction) and is the least intensive. Tier 2 is for children who do not respond successfully to Tier 1 intervention and is more intensive than Tier 1 intervention. Tier 3 is the most intense level of intervention and is for the small number of children who do not respond successfully to intervention at Tiers 1 and 2.

  Some features of intervention that can be altered to increase intervention intensity include duration of the intervention, frequency of the intervention, frequency of progress monitoring during intervention, scope of skills addressed during intervention, format of intervention (e.g., small-group versus individual), and use of standard protocol versus individualized functional assessment. Presumably decreasing the student to teacher ratio will increase intensity because it can permit more opportunities for the student to respond and practice the skill, more opportunities for the student to receive individualized feedback about the accuracy of his/her responses, and more individualized adjustment of the instructor’s response tailored to the student’s need (e.g., teacher can briefly reduce task difficulty, re-train a prerequisite skill, provide brief instruction on a new skill, change to fluency-building practice, add incentives, etc based on student performance). Importantly, with intervention implementation, the devil is in the details as they say and the degree to which a lower student to teacher ratio actually or functionally increases intervention intensity depends upon the degree to which the lower student to teacher ratio permits more individualized and higher quality instruction than would be possible in working with a small group of students. Hence, implementers should consider that it is possible to reduce student to teacher ratio and not increase intensity, just as it is possible to increase the duration of intervention and not really increase the intensity of intervention. If intensity is defined as the power or force with which a process operates as estimated by the results that are obtained, then intensity of intervention is evaluated by its capacity to improve learning. More intense interventions are those interventions that have greater capacity to improve learning. While features like student to teacher ratio and duration of intervention are signals that the intervention might be more intensive, it’s really the degree to which these conditions permit more effective, more individualized, and more frequent instructional interactions to occur that define intensity. Implementers should plan for monitoring intervention intensity via use of intervention protocols, frequent student progress monitoring, and direct intervention integrity checks.

• Why should we undertake Response to Intervention (RTI) when we already have several other initiatives going on in our district?

  Response from Ann Casey, Ph.D.:  RTI is a framework that could be used as an organizing tool for all of our work in education.  The main intent of RTI is to ensure students receive targeted instruction early so all students can be successful. In RTI, we integrate measurement/data systems to focus instruction by using a problem solving process.  These components are the framework.  If student achievement (both academics and social behavior) is the main goal of schools, then most school initiatives should fit well into this framework. If they don't fit, then the question to ask is what is the intended outcome of those initiatives.

• Can you describe the relationship between RTI and NCLB?

  Response from Laura Kaloi, Public Policy Director, National Center for Learning Disabilities: IDEA 2004 encourages schools to begin using a process that determines if a student responds to a "scientific, research-based intervention" as a part of the evaluation procedures to determine which students may have a specific learning disability (SLD) and need special education.  Response to Intervention (RTI) is the most commonly used method among the many multi-tiered intervention systems/methods being used by schools, districts and states.  Currently, there is no specific language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that explicitly allows or requires funds to be used for the same purpose.  Making this more explicit is important because it is NCLB, not IDEA that is the authorizing law for Title I services in schools targeting low-income schools.  Title I provides funds to ensure there are extra funds for staff, training and resources for students struggling in reading and math – impacting the majority of our schools nationwide (e.g. the state of NY receives over $1 billion in Title I funding annually).  In order to make NCLB and IDEA more congruent and ensure that funding can flow from both IDEA and NCLB to help struggling learners, it is important that NCLB include explicit language that allows the use of Title I funds for RTI.

• Is RTI mandated by federal law?

  Response from Alexa Posny, Ph.D., Kansas Commissioner of Education: Response to intervention (RTI) is not mandated by federal law or federal regulation.  In fact, the phrase "response to intervention" never appears in either federal law or regulation.  What is included in the IDEA regulations (Sec. 300.307) in the determination whether a child has a specific learning disability, is that the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement is no longer required (however it can be still be used) and that it is permissible to "use a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention…"  What causes confusion for some is that RTI is being shared by many practitioners and researchers as a systematic process of screening all students for academic difficulty, implementing instructional/interventions that have evidence to support their efficacy, monitoring student progress in these interventions, and applying more intense levels or "tiers" of interventions as needed. The use of  RTI as a systematic process for screening, intervening and monitoring—while not mandated by federal law—is what was intended under IDEA to determine a child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention.

  Additionally, another initiative that is often confused with RTI is Early Intervening Services (EIS). EIS is sometimes viewed as an individual student problem solving approach or a standard protocol approach to interventions. Under IDEA, a local education agency may use up to 15 percent of its IDEA Part B funds to develop and implement the provision of early intervening services for students who have not yet been identified as needing special education but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in general education.

  In Kansas, to assist the field in implementing a prevention and/or intervention system of support for any child, we have referred to it as a Multi-Tier System of Supports or MTSS.  MTSS encompasses both RTI and EIS and more.  Simply put, MTSS is a continuum of increasingly intense research-based interventions provided to students that respond to their academic and/or behavioral needs. It includes ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the interventions provided. The outcome is to ensure that each Kansas student achieves to high standards.

• How do we get buy-in from staff?

  Response from Ann Casey, Ph.D.:  Spending time building consensus for Response to Intervention is a very important activity.  It may not be possible to have all your staff on board and supportive, but it's important to have the majority of staff supportive of implementation.  There are many activities that can support consensus building, but perhaps one of the best is to provide teachers with the opportunity to learn how it has worked for other teachers.  This can be accomplished in several ways:  professional development opportunities such as attending conferences where RTI is a focus, visiting schools where RTI is already under way, and looking at student improvement data from schools where RTI has been implemented.  It should also help to present RTI as not yet another thing, but as a framework for our work in schools.  Finally, most teachers entered the profession because of their desire to help students learn which is the outcome of RTI.

• How can you garner buy-in from veteran teachers who have seen it all come and go before and believe RTI is just another swing of the pendulum?

  Response from Tom Komp: The question of "How to Engage Veteran Teachers in RTI?" comes up repeatedly during many workshops on RTI.  There is no definitive answer.  The only advice that I give is the knowledge that the data collected through RTI makes a good teacher want to get better and great teachers will shine!  Most of our experienced teachers have ridden the tide of many educational initiatives.  RTI is not the latest educational fad.  It validates good teaching and gives more information to teachers so they may help their students.  RTI helps organize and monitor good teaching practices that have existed for years.  It also infuses many research based and validated programs that never existed 20 years ago.

  I have had several teachers "put off retirement" because of the excitement generated by the validation of their teaching. I have also experienced teachers that are "counting down the days." The students in both of these classrooms continue to be monitored to assure a quality education.  Extra support for the students in either class is given as needed.  Our veteran teachers have invaluable experience that the RTI process seems to complement.  Their expertise is utilized through the decision making process that is necessary for an effective program to succeed.

  Our most experienced teachers are the cornerstone for success.  Their "gut feelings" about students are often validated through data. Using their experience and research, we frequently find solutions to difficult student issues.  Ownership of this process helps to establish an effective RTI.

• Why are you supporting RTI at the high school level when the research base for high school efficacy is not particularly strong?

  Response from Barbara J. Ehren, Ed.D.:  In general RTI at the secondary level does not have the track record that it has at the elementary level.  In the scheme of things, we haven't been at this process for very long. When addressing RTI efficacy it is important to ask "efficacy for what purpose?" In looking at the twofold purpose of RTI, we could address efficacy in preventing school failure and efficacy in identifying students with learning disabilities. I would like to address the first purpose. When we talk about prevention in high school, we are addressing the prevention of further failure and the often dire consequences of school failure (e.g. alienation, dropping out, anti-social behavior). It would be hard to argue that a high school shouldn't address the needs of struggling learners by having intervention options that increase with intensity (aka RTI). The alternative is to allow students to fail unless they can qualify for special education (and not all of them should or would qualify).  Moral reasons aside, in this age of accountability high schools cannot afford to ignore struggling learners. It is a myth that adolescence is too late for intervention. We do have a substantial body of research that has demonstrated that intervention with high school students can improve academic performance, including literacy. However, until we have more experience with RTI in high school we will not know how effective a systematic approach to varying levels of intervention intensity can be in preventing school failure. But can we live with the alternative in today's schools?

• What is the difference between a pre-referral team and a problem-solving team?

  Response from Barbara J. Ehren, Ed.D.:  It depends on who is using the term. Before RTI became an initiative, some schools used pre-referral or problem-solving teams to assist teachers in implementing classroom interventions to help individual struggling students. In some instances other options were also available (e.g. small group instruction from a Title I teacher). Another popular label for such a group was "teacher assistance team." When used in a preventative manner, these groups contained the seeds of what we now call RTI because they identified ways to provide support to students outside of special education. However, in some places referring students to this group was a perfunctory move en route to eligibility for special education (i.e., What hoops do we have to jump through before we can have this student evaluated for special education?). As many schools and districts have rolled out RTI, they have identified a group of professionals to review assessment data (screening and progress) to identify students in need of support beyond universal, scientifically-based instruction (Tier 1). They may call such a group by many different names, including "pre-referral team" and "problem-solving team." However, I would like to argue that the use of the former flies in the face of the spirit of RTI. To use the term "pre-referral" orients schools toward the traditional special education referral process. It literally means "before referral" and is too closely associated with the old way of doing business when special education was the desired destination for struggling students.

• I understand RTI is based on instruction, but how and where does the actual curriculum fit in all this? Would you agree that it doesn't matter how intense you try to teach a subject, if the curriculum is not appropriate, the student will never master the necessary skills?

  Response from Carolyn Denton, Ph.D.: The word "curriculum" is used to mean "published program" or "a list of objectives that should be addressed in a given subject/grade level." Both of these are very important in RTI models, both at Tier 1 (classroom instruction) and for supplemental intervention. It's important that instruction is directed at teaching appropriate objectives (content, strategies, and skills). Teachers can address their states' established objectives for each subject area and grade level, although students performing below grade level in reading need instruction designed to address their needs. If they have "holes in their foundational learning" (unmastered skills or ineffective strategies that are holding back their progress), teachers should use assessments to find out what the students need to learn — and teach it, moving them forward as quickly as possible. It's also critical that teachers are provided with high-quality published programs, and I'll focus my remarks on that meaning of "curriculum." Since my area of research and expertise is reading, I'll address it in my response. And, since much has been written about the adoption of research-based core reading programs at Tier 1, I'll discuss Tier 2 and 3 intervention programs.

  There is a large amount of converging research evidence that students who struggle to learn to read benefit from a curriculum (program) that (a) is organized in a systematic way, with easier skills taught before harder ones, necessary subskills building in a logical sequence (as a simple example, teaching the sounds of b and r before introducing the br- blend and asking students to sound out the word "brand," and confusing elements separated (e.g., teaching b and d several weeks apart); (b) includes directions to the teacher to deliver explicit instruction, directly teaching students what they need to learn; (c) provides many opportunities for students to practice skills and strategies with clear positive and corrective feedback, scaffolding and support, as well as independently (with cumulative practice built in over time); and (d) provides for ample practice applying skills with teacher support and feedback in connected text at an appropriate level of difficulty. Effective reading intervention programs don't all look alike. Some are scripted and highly prescriptive, and some are not. Some use decodable text and some don't. Teachers should not have to put all this together on their own! They should be provided with a program that has these characteristics. They will probably need to adapt instruction to meet individual students' needs, but it's not a teacher's job to develop the curriculum from scratch.

  Although just about every program on the market these days says that it is "research based," it is important for educators to actually look beyond the advertisements when adopting an intervention program and ask to see the studies that show evidence of effectiveness for students with reading difficulties. Ask for more than "testimonials" that say, "We used this program and our kids did great." Look for research that compared student outcomes using the program with outcomes from another approach. There are also websites that can help educators make their way beyond sales pitches to find curricula that really are supported by research evidence, such as the one maintained by the Florida Center on Reading Research (among others).

  This quote from Lyon (2006) says it well, "If you find a program isn't doing well, that is to be expected if teachers aren't implementing the program with fidelity." Likewise, you can have the most well prepared teacher, but if the program is ineffective, kids will not learn. One can also have a great teacher and a great program but if the building level leadership is poor and the teachers are not provided enough time to teach and to collaborate with one another, then kids will not learn. It is complex, but so is life. The point is, when all elements are in place, students learn - even those from the direst circumstances.

  (Retrieved on July 21, 2008 from http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/2006/01252006.htm)

• Who founded RTI?

  Response from W. David Tilly, Ph.D.: Response to Intervention (RtI) is most accurately described as a movement rather than a thing. For the past 30 years or so, a fairly tight knit group of people across the country have been quietly working on ways to bring evidence-based practice into schools. There have been a number of iterations in that direction. Some of the earliest roots of what is now known as RtI can be found in practices such as precision teaching (Ogden Lindsley), direct instruction (Zig Engelmann and Wes Becker), behavioral consultation (John Bergan), and curriculum-based measurement (Stan Deno). All of these approaches and initiatives have concerned themselves with improving instruction for students in measurable ways, using objective growth of student skills as the criterion of effectiveness. Many different implementations of evidence-based practice have been tried in many parts of the country, with varying degrees of success—and many important lessons were learned. The people involved with these implementations were both researchers and practitioners, but they shared one characteristic. They were intensely interested in not only figuring out "what works" but also "how to make it work" in the real world of schools. As time went by, we got better and better at improving results for students until something of a perfect storm occurred:

  1. We had data showing that despite our best efforts, many students still were not benefiting sufficiently from their school experience.
  2. The world became globalized and if the United States is to remain competitive, nearly all of our students are going to have to achieve at much higher levels.
  3. The accountability movement in the United States (led primarily by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002) was forcing schools to pay much more attention to the achievement of all of their students. At the same time, funding for education was at best flat.

  So there was this huge quest to figure out how to become both more efficient and more effective across the board in schools. Into this vacuum entered what is now called RtI. Stated plainly, RtI results from the marriage of a long history of evidence-based practices (and the lessons learned there from) with a new and more efficient resource-deployment system (the Three-Tier Approach) that better allows schools to match instructional resources directly to the nature and intensity of student learning needs. Fancy sounding words that basically mean that RtI lets schools look at kids' needs and use their resources most efficiently to provide effective instruction for all of them.

  In short, schools that are effective do three things well:

  1. They figure out what they want kids to know and be able to do.
  2. They align their curriculum and instruction to teach those things.
  3. They keep score.

  RtI provides the evidence-based tools to help schools do these things efficiently. So where does RtI come from? It comes from the confluence of a long history of applied research and practice coupled with improved engineering for delivering instruction in the real world, all wrapped up in the perfect storm of political and social policy imperatives demanding better outcomes for all of our children. Put that all together with a big dose of common sense and you get RtI.

• Can students who are receiving special education services be included in an RTI framework?

  Response from Jack Fletcher, Ph.D.: Because we don't know each child's particular situation, this is a hard question to answer. The short answer is that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) governs instruction for students with disabilities and if part of their time is spent in interventions through RTI, then the IEP should reflect it. If RTI interventions are part of general education and the special education teacher is the provider, then the IEP should also reflect this activity.

  Remember, the issue of who provides services in a RTI model depends on the regulations within each state and local district.

• As we begin to implement the RTI framework, we are wondering how or if the Student Services Team (SST) or Child Support Team (CST) paperwork that already exists should come into play. Should Student Support/Child Study teams be suspended entirely in light of this new model or is there an effective way to integrate the two?

  Response from Matthew Burns, Ph.D.: This is a great question. Student Support Teams (SST) and Child Study Teams (CST) are commonly used in schools today. They both were developed from the problem-solving team (PST) framework in which educational professionals conduct in-depth problem analysis for a student’s difficulty and develop individualized interventions. However, very few SST/CSTs actually function as a PST. Most do not solve problems. Most SST/CSTs function more like a pre-referral team than a PST. Here are a few behaviors that indicate your team is a pre-referral team rather than a PST: if you require 30 minutes per student, but 25 of those minutes are spent discussing the problem and 5 are spent brainstorming solutions, if the referring teacher spends the entire time making his or her case that the student should be "tested," or if the primary question that the team answers is whether or not the student should be referred for a special education eligibility evaluation rather than how to help the student. If the SST/CST functions as a pre-referral team, then my experience suggests that you fold the team, wait a short period of time, and reconvene a PST with new forms and additional training. I have a chapter in Best Practices for School Psychology [(5th Edition.), Eds. Thomas, A. & Grimes, J.] that could be used for study groups on the issue. If the SST/CST does function as a PST, then by all means fold the paperwork etc. into the RTI model by convening about students for whom the Tier 2 intervention was not successful. Thus, PSTs should help develop the Tier 3 interventions and decisions about referring students to the PST should be made with Tier 2 progress monitoring data.

  There is one more factor to consider. Some SST/CSTs are actually pre-referral teams by design. In other words, it could be that the designated function of the SST/CST is to determine if a student should be evaluated for special education eligibility. This team could also play a role in the RTI framework. Students for whom a Tier 3 intervention was not successful, or for whom the intervention was successful but too intense to be delivered without the support of special education, could be referred by the grade-level team to the SST/CST and that group could decide if and what additional data are needed. In this case, then integrating the SST/CST model and paperwork would be fairly straightforward, except you likely would have to add an "If" option to the types of data needed. However, a PST is still needed within Tier 3 to develop interventions and the progress monitoring plan.

• Is there any known relationship between RTI and retention of students?

  Response from Scott Baker Ph.D., University of Oregon: It's important to note that Response to Intervention (RTI) is still in its earliest stages and definitive statements about its outcomes are very hard to make right now. That being said, RTI does have the potential to shine the spotlight onto a range of important instructional variables that will help all kids learn important knowledge, skills, and behaviors in school. 

  Students with and without disabilities will benefit from more effective classroom instruction. One result of better instruction should be a reduction in the number of students who are being retained because their schools feel they have not learned enough to move to the next grade. Some of those kids, as you know, have not learned enough for the schools to conclude they should be retained because the instruction they have received has not been of sufficient quality or carefully planned and delivered to support the instructional needs these students have. RTI is supposed to give educators a way to deliver instruction that is better able to support the full range of students in schools.

  Without improving instruction, whether it’s in behavior or academics, reductions in grade retention will not really mean anything in terms of student learning and development. It will just mean that they are still not learning enough in a grade that is one grade higher than the one they were in the year before.

• Head Start has a federal requirement to service children with an IEP (10% enrollment to children with disabilities.) If school districts are using Response to Intervention and finding fewer children eligible for special education, and therefore fewer children with IEPs, they will not meet their federal requirement. Any suggestions on how to work with LEA's on this?

  Response from Mary Ruth Coleman, Ph.D.: A scenario in which we have done such an outstanding job recognizing and responding to the needs of young children that fewer children require special education services with IEPs, would be an amazing outcome for any school district. This outcome would be a true success for RTI, but more importantly it would be wonderful for the children and their families. Any school district that accomplished this would be a model for country. 

  But, back to the question, what do we do with the 10% requirement for Head Start?  First, there will always be children who need special education services, and even with RTI we should be able to meet the 10% requirement. Second, Head Start is also changing and will have to review their requirements as more educators begin to implement RTI. This review may include rethinking the use of a percentage of the funds for Tier 2 as early intervening for children who need more support but do not need IEPs. Finally, if LEA's concentrate on services for children, and more children are successful, they should document this and submit these accomplishments as evidence for changes needed within Head Start requirements.

• What should we do if we feel that the fidelity of instruction was compromised in one of the tiers of intervention?

  Response from George Noell, Ph.D.: Develop a plan to directly assess implementation. Carry out that plan with observations or physical products (e.g., self-monitoring cards, fact practice sheets, etc.) and share the objective data with the provider.  Discuss problems and provide feedback. Until implementation is at a high level there is no purpose in proceeding. Without solid implementation, RTI is a process lacking in substance. 

  For a model of how to measure implementation and provide feedback you might consult:

  Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., & Duhon, G. J. (2005).  Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools:  A comparison of three follow-up strategies.  School Psychology Review, 34, 87-106.

  For some thoughts on the fundamental ethical and moral role of plan implementation to RTI you might look at:

  Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006).  Assuring the form has substance:  Treatment plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention.  Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 32-39.

• Does the RTI framework address students who are considered gifted?

  Response from Sheldon Horowitz, Ph.D.: RTI is not just about looking for kids who are struggling. RTI is about ALL kids and helping educators understand and address their learning and behavioral needs in an effective, time sensitive and standards-appropriate manner. An initial screening could reveal to a classroom teacher that a group of students was ready to be accelerated in the presentation of academic content and/or it was appropriate to offer enrichment opportunities that would enable them to deepen proficiencies and expand skills and content knowledge. This is RTI at its best! The same goes for students who were at expected entry levels of content mastery and those for whom prior skill development and ‘readiness’ might pose obstacles to instruction and learning.

• If a student has been identified with a language disability and is currently receiving IEP services but a new concern has come up regarding the student's math ability, must the school reconvene the RTI process to provide math supports or should the concerns be addressed solely by the IEP team?

  Response from David Allsopp, Ph.D.:  This is an interesting question! Here is my take on the situation:

  "Data" is the first key here. The language of the particular special education regulations in the state/district is the second key. The first question that should be asked is what data (i.e., CBM) is there that shows the student is not performing at grade level in mathematics? This should then drive everything else that is done. For example, if the data demonstrates that the student is not performing appropriately in mathematics in a "Tier 1" context where evidence-based mathematics instructional practices are occurring, then consideration for "Tier 2" (more intensive delivery of evidence-based instruction) may be warranted. The same would be true for Tier 2 if the student continues to struggle. Again, data (CBM) has to drive this decision as well. At the Tier 3 level, actions depend on how the district/school is implementing RTI. One option is a more intensive and different set of interventions are now implemented paying specific attention to the data results from Tiers 1 and 2. If special education is the point of tier 3 then that school/district should follow the procedures that have been outlined by their special education regulations regarding additional diagnostic testing and possible identification of a mathematics learning disability or other disability. In some cases this might mean a re-evaluation is in order. Without knowing the specifics regarding state/district special education regulations in this situation and what processes are used for identification, I would not be able to say specifically what the procedures should be. If the data collection piece is in place and has been appropriately used to match the student’s needs to the appropriate instructional interventions (i.e. Response to intervention) and the student is not responding then the "RTI" aspect has been addressed. At this point it is up to how the state/district has operationalized re-evaluation and/or disability identification procedures. In some cases, it may be logical that the language disability is the cause of the mathematics learning problems. If this is indeed the case, then a change in IEP would be appropriate to address the mathematics area without further identification. Either way, I would imagine that some diagnostic testing would be necessary to make an appropriate decision.

  The crux of the matter here, in my opinion, is whether or not a student who is already identified with a disability and is receiving special education services for one content area can be automatically moved to the same delivery method for other subject areas when they begin showing difficulty but heretofore had not been. I believe the intent of RTI is to allow flexible movement of students back and forth among the instructional tiers regardless of disability identification. However, I believe movement among the tiers has to be based on data collected specific to the areas of concern. What I mean is that I do not believe the intent is to assume students who have been identified and have been having difficulty in one area "automatically" should be moved to the same level of intervention for other subject areas. Taking this approach, in my opinion, would be a violation of the principle of "Least Restrictive Environment" (LRE) and the intent of RTI as explicated within IDEA and NCLB.

• The current RTI literature focuses primarily on reading. How does RTI work with mathematics instruction?

  Response from Amanda VanDerHeyden, Ph.D.: Much of the writing and research on RTI has occurred in the area of reading, but RTI is not limited to reading. Rather, it is a science of decision making that can be applied to a variety of "problem behaviors." Much of the research that has come to be associated with RTI comes from work in curriculum-based assessment and measurement and the problem-solving model as first described by Deno (1985). Under that model, Deno described the potential for student academic performance data collected at baseline and at routine intervals to inform problem definition, solution development, and solution evaluation. Hence, some writers have described RTI as the application of the scientific method whereby hypotheses are developed about what is causing deficient academic performance and the hypothesis is tested via an intervention trial. If the intervention successfully changed the skill, then the hypothesis was confirmed; If not, the hypothesis was disconfirmed and a new hypothesis was developed. RTI has become a vehicle for system reform because it provides a database for making relative judgments (e.g., who needs help the most and how much help do they need) and distributing instructional resources to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of students. RTI, properly understood and used, is focused on improving student learning. 

  In mathematics, a reform process similar to that that occurred in reading in the 1990's appears to be underway. Whereas math has been under-researched relative to reading, research findings are available to guide RTI application in mathematics. Specifically, research is available to guide the selection of adequate screening measures, selection of adequate progress monitoring measures, development of decision criteria, and the development of intervention protocols appropriate for use at all tiers of instruction. For more information, read RTI and Math Instruction.

• Our district has been doing universal screening in reading for at least 5 years. We are moving our whole district toward the RTI model with the focus at K-1 this year. Should we try to implement a universal screening for math at this time? Or should we wait?

  Response from Amanda VanDerHeyDen, Ph.D.: I don't think there is a "right" answer to this question. Any district considering initiation or expansion of their RTI efforts has to make that decision considering the goals of the district (desired and prioritized outcomes), existing resources, and resources needed to implement. When I have helped make such decisions I have found it helpful to specify what improvements are possible with the implementation or expansion, how much the effort will cost, and then to determine whether the cost is worth it. Once a decision has been reached that the added implementation effort is worth the cost to implement, then it's helpful to specify exactly what actions need to occur well for implementation to have the desired effect. To me, the key is to only undertake as much as can be done well. If I were in your shoes, these are the questions I would ask:

  1. What are our reading outcomes in our district? How do our students perform on the year-end accountability measures in reading? What about the high-risk groups of readers? Are there many class-wide or any grade-wide reading problems?
  2. 
     What effect has our implementation of RTI procedures in the area of reading had on the number of students being referred and evaluated for special education services? Are there any particular demographics that are over-represented in the referral and evaluation pool?

  
  Answers like, "Reading scores are on the rise. We have no demographic categories of students who are under-achieving relative to their peers. More children are getting intervention (correctly selected and implemented) than previously and this seems to have reduced the number of students who must be discussed by the school-based referral team" indicate that the RTI effort in reading is occurring well and is having a discernible effect on student and system outcomes. If the Reading RTI effort is being implemented well and having the desired effect, then expansion to mathematics may be warranted. In my work, we are finding systemic performance problems in mathematics in lots of schools. So once reading intervention and prevention efforts are being implemented well and having the desired effect, it might be a good use of resources to expand to mathematics. One basis for expanding RTI to mathematics might be low year-end accountability scores or school-wide screening data indicating poor performance on mathematics skills.

  In your case, it sounds like your district is already planning an expansion. It sounds like your district will be adding the tiered interventions and decision making districtwide for reading. If that is the case, it might make the most sense to ensure that the reading RTI is implemented fully and correctly so that it can have the desired effects prior to undertaking mathematics implementation. Implementation is the linchpin of RTI and it is better to implement on a smaller scale with quality. Correct implementation requires constant monitoring and adjustment.

  Other ideas for starting small include: beginning with particular grade levels and expanding to additional grades, beginning with one school and expanding to additional schools, beginning with one topic area (e.g., reading), and/or beginning with one component of the RTI process (e.g., universal screening).

   

• How does "extended time" or other accommodations fit into the RTI model?

  Response from Daryl Mellard, Ph.D.: Extended time for tests is not an intervention. Accommodations are meant to level the field so that a student can fairly access and participate in the environment. One doesn’t want the student’s disability to limit his opportunity to participate.

  Accommodations might be applied in any tier or level of an RTI intervention framework. Accommodations are not their own tier. We hope that accommodations can be applied in the first prevention level to support a student in the general education curriculum.

• Why is it important to have a student go through each Tier if you know a child needs an intense amount of assistance that can only be provided in Tier 3?

  Response from Barbara Ehren, EdD, CCC-SLP: The basic intent of RTI is to deliver what students need when they need it.  It is hard to address the situation of a particular student without having all the information. Further without knowing the nature of the tiers to which you refer, it is hard to make a recommendation. Tier 1 would typically be instruction in the core curriculum. The bottom line is that students should not have to jump through "hoops" (preliminary tiers) for the mere sake of going through a process if there are substantial data to show that a comprehensive evaluation is in his best interest. That doesn’t mean, however, that he can’t also be receiving intervention in preliminary tiers while being evaluated.

• If a student is currently receiving interventions in Tier 3, do they still receive Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions or is each tier separate?

  Response from Ed Shapiro, Ph.D.: Both Tier 2 and Tier 3 are always considered supplemental instruction to Tier 1.  Given that Tier 1 represents the instructional processes delivered as part of the core instruction program, ALL students, including those in either Tier 2 or 3 receive Tier 1 instruction.  Those in need of supplemental instructional services, that is those not responsive alone to Tier 1 instruction, would receive either Tier 2 or Tier 3 instruction, not both. The level of this instruction would depend on their level of instructional need.  In some cases, students may have previously had Tier 2 instruction during which the student was not found to have a sufficient response.  Those students would then receive more intensive instruction, with more intensive monitoring of their instruction and this is considered Tier 3 instruction.  In some RTI models, students might be identified during the fall benchmark period as in need of Tier 3 level instruction immediately, in which case they would receive intensive levels of instruction and not go through Tier 2 first.  In either case, let me reiterate that they would be receiving Tier 1 instruction as well.  Tier 2 and 3 instruction is ALWAYS supplemental instruction to core instruction (Tier 1). It NEVER supplants Tier 1 instruction.

• My school schedule asks me to complete six assessments from the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP) in September on all students. Our specials services team is also administering three DIBELs assessments. I am wondering if administering this many assessments is best practice. Most of the assessments will not be used for re-testing to show student growth. I feel that this much time testing takes away from my ability to help these kindergartners become adjusted to the classroom. I also feel that if these tests are not going to be used for group placement and growth, that maybe the testing schedule should be re-evaluated. What do you think?

  Response from Evelyn Johnson, Ed.D.: It sounds like your school is working hard to implement a universal screening process that will identify kindergarteners who may require intervention in order to become successful readers, and that is great! It also sounds like your school asks you to complete a number of assessments to ensure that all students who may be at-risk are identified. The research on screening suggests that using multiple measures can result in a more accurate screening process – having more data points on student performance provides more stability in the scores obtained during the screening process. That means we can have more confidence in the decisions made as a result of screening. Additionally, using a variety of measures that assess various component skills of reading may serve an important diagnostic role; areas of relative strength and weakness can be identified in order to determine an appropriate intervention for that child.

  However, as you note, there needs to be a balance between efficiency and accuracy in the screening process, and given that your school is using nine assessments (by my count) on all students, it may be worthwhile to evaluate the screening procedure to determine if all measures are truly necessary for all students. There are several ways to evaluate the screening process. I'll outline a couple that should help. Using last year's screening and outcome data, a regression analysis can identify the strongest predictor(s) of end of year reading performance. Procedures for running such analyses are outlined in screening articles such as Catts, Fey, Zhang & Tomblin, (2001). Through this type of analysis, your school may find that it is only necessary to administer a few measures to accurately identify students in need of intervention.

  Alternatively, a small number of measures can be used to identify an initial risk pool of students, and then this initial group of students can have their progress monitored for five to six weeks using a curriculum-based measure (CBM). Research has shown that this process results in a very accurate identification process (see for example, Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs & Bryant, 2006; Davis, Lindo & Compton, 2007).

  Either one of these procedures may help your school streamline the screening process to include only that which is necessary for you to identify early those kindergarteners who require intervention in order to become successful readers.

  Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children. Language, Speech, and Hearing in the Schools, 32, 38-50.

  Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.

  Davis, G. N., Lindo, E. J., & Compton, D. (2007). Children at-risk for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (5), 32-39.

• We hear a lot about the importance of addressing fluency when screening students. Is this the most important reading component to address?

  Response from Karen Wixson, Ph.D.: All components of reading should be addressed within an RTI framework.  However, the extent to which each component is addressed may vary as a function of developmental levels (e.g., early elementary, upper elementary, middle and high school), and as a function of the purposes for which assessments are used (e.g., screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring).  Fluency is often used to screen students, but it's important to understand that these screening measures are most predictive at the early elementary levels.  Beyond these levels, it's likely that screening measures will need to include other components of reading to avoid the situation of students with high fluency who appear to be okay, but who have problems in other areas of reading.  It's also important to note that most screening measures do not provide sufficient information for planning instruction and that further evaluation of other reading components appropriate for different grade levels will be needed before identifying the most appropriate instruction intervention.  Finally, progress monitoring measures should be focused on the components of reading addressed in instruction, which means that they need to go beyond fluency.

• In regards to implementing RTI at the secondary level, how do you address the issue of universal screening?

  Response from Evelyn Johnson, Ed.D.: First, it will be important to determine the outcome you are trying to predict. At the elementary school level, screening is conducted to determine who is at-risk for poor academic outcomes, especially in reading and math. At the secondary level, we typically know which students are struggling academically – those who have a history of low performance and/or those who require additional support to achieve minimal requirements. Therefore, it may help to conceptualize successful high school graduation as the outcome of interest for RTI at the secondary levels.

  Focusing on the outcome of successful high school completion requires selecting (or developing) screening instruments that measure factors that are highly predictive of high school completion. There is ample research to suggest that some of the best predictors of high school drop outs are: a) attendance in the first 30 days of the "transition" years of middle and high school (e.g. 6th and 9th grades); b) being "on track" with credit/course completion at the end of 9th grade; and c) successful completion of core courses such as english and math. The National High School Center provides numerous resources and publications to assist secondary schools with the implementation of a screening system that targets these areas – it is called the "Early Warning System" tool.

  Additionally, schools will want to consider the use of performance benchmarks on measures of reading, math and writing to provide more information on the particular areas of concern. The Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM) has several resources for progress monitoring tools for secondary students. Other available instruments include assessments such as the NWEA’s Measures of Academic Performance (MAP), AIMSweb measures in reading, writing, and math, or district level assessments.

  Obtaining screening information on a variety of measures (that includes academics and engagement) can help schools develop and provide more comprehensive, and ultimately, more effective interventions to support their students.

• When measuring the progress of a student, in a tiered approach, how do you determine when the student may need to enter into another tier? (How do you determine what progress is good enough and how much time do you give them?)

  Response from Joseph Jenkins, Ph.D.: Right now there is no consensus about the amount of progress required that qualifies as "adequate progress." It's an important and complicated question. For example, "adequate progress" will differ according to the student's grade level and the kind of progress measure employed. For example, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hintze, and Lembke recommend 1.8 words/week gain on Word Identification Fluency (WIF) for first graders, and 1.0 words per week gain on Passage Reading Fluency (PRF) for second graders.

  Some RTI decision frameworks use both the student's level and slope (weekly gain) to determine whether to change tiers. For example at Tier 2:

  Grade 1 WIF level < 30 and slope <1.8 leads to special education evaluation and possible placement in Tier 3. Students with adequate slopes (>1.8 WIF); PRF return to Tier 1.

  Grade 2 PRF level <60 and slope <1.0 leads to special education evaluation and possible placement in Tier 3. Students with adequate slopes (>1.0 PRF) return to
  Tier 1.

  Until there is better consensus, schools/districts/states will have to define adequate progress.

• Must you assess a student before determining intervention strategies?

  Response from Daryl Mellard, Ph.D.: Intervention selection needs to be based on the assessment of the student’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. Procedures need to be in place that allow for the assessment of students early in the school year or there must be adequate information from the previous year available to guide the decision process. If the information indicates that previous interventions and accommodations were successful, they should be reviewed for their match with the current requirements in the classes and that the accommodations still speak to important values (e.g., efficacy, portability, increasing independence, social acceptance, affordability, training requirements, and ease of implementation). Parents should expect that the school staff and parents will review and implement interventions and accommodations very early in the school year.

• What if a child makes acceptable progress in data collection through intervention but is still not transferring these skills to the classroom?

  Response from Patti Ralabate, Ph.D.: There are a few ways to address this concern:

  1. Look at the trajectory of the student's progress.  Are they on the way to performing at grade level expectations but it will take them longer to get there than other students?  Does the teacher and the team consider this rate of progress to be acceptable?  If the rate of growth is acceptable, then a referral for a special education evaluation is not warranted.  The student may not be performing on grade level but there is every expectation that he/she will be given the appropriate amount of time.  If the rate of growth is too slow, then the team should consider other options, such as the ones listed below.
  2. Broaden the intervention.  If the skills that are being addressed by the intervention(s) are too narrow or isolated, consider broadening the interventions to address additional, related skills and provide time to the student to practice using the new skills.  It takes time to learn a new skill and then to generalize it into various contexts.  Students often need an opportunity to practice interconnecting activities after a new isolated skill is learned in order to be able to use it in an "authentic" manner.
  3. Evaluate the big picture.  A referral for a special education evaluation should be considered when there is evidence that the student may be disabled.  Not all students who are academically behind are disabled.  What other evidence, besides slower progress, suggests that this student is disabled?  If there are no other characteristics, then a special education evaluation would be premature.  If, however, there are other indications that this student may be disabled, then the teacher has every right and has a responsibility to ensure that the student's right to an evaluation is not delayed by the RTI process.

  Response from Karen Wixson, Ph.D.: Your question raises a number of issues related to RTI. When the assessment and interventions used in the context of RTI are narrowly focused on fluency or other word reading components, they are not likely to address the “whole” of reading as a complex, meaning making process. It’s not surprising then that students can make progress on a particular component of this process and still not be performing in grade appropriate ways.
  However, this does not mean that they need to be referred to special education. Instead, it’s likely that the assessments used to screen and monitor progress need to focus on a broader range of skills in ways that yield instructionally meaningful results. With this information, instruction/intervention can address the combination of skills students need to achieve grade level performance. It’s also important to recognize that progress toward grade level standards can be a relatively slow process depending on how far behind students are and/or their learning rates.
  In short, the problem is not with RTI per se, but with the manner in which it is being implemented. Done well, RTI has the potential to address most students’ problems as they arise in ways that mitigate the need for referral.

• Where can I go to find effective progress monitoring tools?

  Response from Evelyn Johnson, Ed.D.: A good starting point to find any information about progress monitoring is the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. They publish a review of progress monitoring tools in a helpful, easy to read chart and that review includes materials that range from grades K-12.

  The Florida Center for Reading Research is another good resource. They are developing Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and Maze passages for K-12.

  The Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM) has several resources for progress monitoring tools for secondary students. In a publication, CBM at the Secondary Level, the RIPM outlines their work on curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading, writing, math and content areas at the secondary levels. While they do not publish actual CBMs on their site, they do provide step-by-step guidance on how to develop these materials, which helps schools ensure their assessment tools align with their particular curricular needs.

• If I want to know whether students are on track to be proficient readers, why would I use a fluency measure?

  Response from Ann Casey, Ph.D.:  Considerable research went into determining what quick and easy measures were the best predictor of reading proficiency.  There are now hundreds of studies validating the utility of this measurement system.  As it turned out, fluency was the best predictor that met these criteria.  What is important to understand, however, is that the measurement (words read correctly in one minute) is not the goal – it's an indicator of whether students are on track to become proficient readers with comprehension.  These measures are often referred to as Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs) or General Outcome Measures (GOMs). Reading rate is an indicator, much like a thermometer is an indicator of health.  Thus, words read correctly, is an indicator of reading 'health' or proficiency.  For older students, another measure, maze, is a good indicator of reading proficiency.  This measurement can be given in three minutes to a group of students (rather than individually), and consists of having students read a passage silently with every 7th word omitted, and the student is to supply the appropriate missing word from a multiple choice format.

• Our teachers monitor student progress now. We have end of unit tests, and so teachers always know what skills students have learned or not learned. Why would we want to add an additional measurement tool such as curriculum based measures, also referred to as general outcome measures?

  Response from Ann Casey, Ph.D.:  It's great that you have these data, as it should help your teachers plan their instruction.  End of unit tests are a good way to gauge what students learned and did not learn, and is good feedback to teachers.  These types of measures are sometimes referred to as mastery monitoring or criterion referenced assessment.  We would encourage you to continue to collect these kinds of data. In RTI we need a measurement system that acts as an indicator of progress toward high stakes outcomes.  The measure should have reliability and validity for this purpose and also be sensitive to growth over time.  Words read correctly and maze meet these criteria.  Schools have a variety of assessment needs. The purposes of assessment can be organized into four categories:  screening, progress monitoring, instructional planning, and summative evaluation.  Schools need measures that meet each of these purposes, and for RTI we focus on the purposes of universal screening and monitoring progress toward high stakes outcomes.

• My district is having a discussion regarding the selection of our screening and progress monitoring tools. We'd like to utilize the same screening tool as our progress monitoring and know that tools such as CBM are validated for both purposes. Others in the district would like to consider screening tools that do not lend themselves to frequent progress monitoring. While we can argue from an efficiency standpoint and continuity of data across decisions, I'd like to know if any of you have published writing on this issue that we can offer to our committee.

  Response from Joseph Jenkins, Ph.D.: There is definitely merit in using some of the same instruments for screening and progress monitoring. However, it is likely some of the measures will ultimately differ because schools will need more detailed measures than CBM to identify students. The problem with using the same CBM progress monitoring assessments for screens is they are not by themselves very accurate screens. In the long run, RTI screening is likely to use a multiple-gating procedure for screening where:

  1. First, a simple (maybe CBM) universal screen is used to identify students potentially at risk.
  2. Second, students scoring around some cut-point receive further, in depth, testing to help distinguish between those who without intervention are likely to fail (true positives) from those who will succeed without intervention (false positives).

  Another consideration is whether schools use a Direct Route or a Progress Monitoring Route model of identifying students for Tier 2. The way that schools identify students for Tier 2 intervention varies according to the type of RTI model that is implemented. In Direct Route Models students identified as at-risk by a screening process are immediately provided Tier 2 intervention (e.g., Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007; Vellutino et al., 1996; Vellutino, Scanlon, Zhang, & Schatschneider, in press). By contrast, in Progress Monitoring, or PM Route Models, universal screening identifies potentially at-risk students whose progress is then monitored for several weeks. Whether these students enter Tier 2 depends on the level of their performance and rate of growth on PM measures (Compton, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2007). The PM Route yields marginally better identification accuracy than the Direct Route, but it also postpones intervention during the PM phase. By contrast, the Direct Route leads to earlier intervention, but without PM to catch screening errors more students are mistakenly identified as at-risk. In both models screening may be a singular event or conducted periodically (e.g., fall, winter, spring).

• Are there specific ethical standards regarding data use internally in schools?

  Response from Matthew Burns, Ph.D.:  There are absolutely ethical standards and I appreciate you asking this question. Assessment issues are best interpreted through the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999), codes of ethics of the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Psychological Association, and federal laws. Jacob and Hartshorne (2007) examined the relevant codes of ethics and laws and concluded that assessments should be multifaceted, comprehensive, fair, useful, and valid. We (Burns, Wagner, & Jacob, 2008) summarized the RTI research relevant to these five facets and concluded that RTI-based assessment practices, when carefully crafted and implemented, have the potential to be multifaceted, fair, valid, and useful.

  Potential threats to acceptable RTI-based assessment practices include: the lack of research-based interventions appropriate for diverse academic domains, ethnic groups, grades K-12, and students with limited English proficiency; uncertainty regarding how to determine when a non-response to intervention warrants formal referral for evaluation of special education eligibility; difficulty translating scientifically sound RTI practices to the local school level; and inadequate staff training and poor treatment fidelity.

• What are the legal issues we should consider, including parental consent, when exploring options for universal screenings for behavior/emotional problems?

  Response from Mary Beth Klotz, Ph.D.: IDEA 2004 states that the screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services (Sec.614(a)(1)(E)). Universal screening of all students for the purpose of planning behavioral strategies therefore would not require parent consent. It is always best practice, however, to keep parents informed and involved with important school initiatives, programs, and assessments. Parental involvement is considered an essential component to successful RTI implementation. It is critical that parents are provided with information about universal screenings, the instruction and interventions used, the staff members delivering the instruction, the academic or behavioral goals for their child, and their child’s progress. It is also important to keep in mind that some school districts have policies requiring parental notice and informed consent for screenings. Similarly, some commercial screening tools recommend parental notice and informed consent as well. In both these instances, parental notice and informed consent should be obtained.

   Also of consideration for the team to discuss before selecting options for universal screeners for behavior/emotional problems is how intrusive the tool may be in terms of requiring personal information. There are sources of data that are routinely collected that are less intrusive and do not require parental consent such as attendance records, discipline referrals, and suspensions. It is also recommended that parents are included on the decision-making team that selects universal screening tools.

• National drop-out rates are outrageous throughout the nation. What programs actually work and can be replicated and implemented for under-served students, especially in impoverished urban and rural areas?

  Response from Pedro A. Noguera, Ph.D.: There are no programs per se that work at reducing the drop-out rate but there are several strategies that are showing results.  The first question we should ask is "Why is it that there are several secondary schools across the country that serve "high need" students but have low dropout rates?" Invariably what we find when we look at these schools are:

  • early intervention strategies for kids in trouble
  • pro-active mentoring programs so that at risk students are connected to caring adults who provide guidance and advice
  • academic support strategies that help students who come to high school with low skills and/or over-age
  • community partnerships to connect kids to jobs, internships and opportunities that help them to set clear future goals

  Following are two references for additional reading on this topic:

  Barth, P., Haycock, K., Jackson, H., Mora, K., Ruiz, P., Robinson, S., & Wilkins, A. (Eds). (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding expectations. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

  Bryk, A. & Schneider, B.  (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage.

• If a student is exhibiting behavior problems in school such as losing assignments, trouble staying on task, disruptive behavior, etc. how should I approach this problem using the RTI framework?

  Response from George Sugai, Ph.D.: First, remember that RtI is not itself an intervention. RtI is a problem solving framework that emphasizes the use of current student data to guide selection of an evidence-based practice that can be implemented with high fidelity or accuracy. Regular evaluation of student responsiveness to an intervention is conducted to determine if an intervention should be continued, adapted, or replaced.
   
  Second, RtI relies on the careful use of DATA to narrow what a student needs to learn/do (OUTCOME). After an outcome is delineated, a tested intervention (PRACTICES) that has been shown to be effective in producing the desired outcome should be selected. Most importantly, implementers must have the SUPPORTS to be fluent and accurate implementers of the intervention. Even the best intervention will not be effective if not implemented with fidelity or not aligned with what the student needs to learn.
   
  Third, whether we are looking at whole school, entire classrooms, or individual students, the above RtI considerations must be in place so that we (a) understand what the student is doing and why, (b) match the best evidence-based intervention to what we learn from this assessment, and (c) arrange the implementation environment and prepare the intervention implementers so that intervention will be implemented with accuracy, durability, relevance, and efficiency. This last consideration may be one of the most important.
   
  Finally, the above can not be done by an individual, but should be done by a team that has family participation, behavioral expertise, and good implementers. So, it is difficult to suggest specific interventions or practices for any one student by only looking at the student's label or diagnosis, or behavior types in isolation of the context or environments in which those behaviors are observed and not observed. From an RtI perspective, it is important to remember that the more non-responsive a student's behavior is, the more intensive and adult supervised the intervention must be. Thus, peer-based and self-management strategies would generally be expected to be less effective, unless adult supports are continued.

• Are there lists of research-based interventions for secondary and tertiary levels of both Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavior Support (PBS)?

  Response from George Sugai, Ph.D.: RTI is a larger problem solving framework for improving decision making based on student responsiveness to intervention for both academic and social behavior. On the behavior side of RTI, positive behavior support provides an organizational structure for establishing a continuum of behavioral interventions for all students. Before discussing secondary/tertiary tier interventions, evidence-based school-wide and classroom-wide primary interventions must be implemented with fidelity and for all students. Thus, if we have not implemented primary tier interventions with accuracy and consistency, discussing secondary/tertiary tier interventions is difficult.

  If we can confirm that primary tier interventions are in place, the research-based secondary/tertiary interventions are considered based on (a) data on the student's non-responsiveness (i.e., problem behavior and context) and (b) type of interventions. With regard to the latter, two general types of interventions are considered. First, are published/manualized school-based interventions (e.g., First Step to Success, Steps to Respect, Skillstreaming, Think Time, Good Behavior Game, Behavior Education Program, Check and Connect, Check In-Check Out). Second, are behaviorally based practices (e.g., functional behavioral interventions and behavior support planning, behavioral contracting, targeted social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, differential reinforcement, cognitive behavioral counseling, self-management training, peer-based behavior management).

  In PBS, the impact of the above practices are only as good as the systems supports, for example, (a) match between student need and the intervention, (b) fidelity of implementation, (c) intervention fluency of the implementers, (d) consistency and comprehensiveness of the implementation across settings and implementers, and (e) timeliness of data-based decision making.

  For additional information, see my article, School-Wide Positive Behavior Support and Response to Intervention and visit the National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support Web site.

• What is the best way to involve and utilize non-certified support staff in RTI?

  Response from Principal Jared Moretti: It is important to clarify who we consider non-certified staff and the conditions under which they work with children. Non-certified staff are district employees who do not hold a teaching certificate. They do not make educational decisions because they do not have a teaching certificate nor do they have the background to make such decisions.  They do receive professional development (e.g., we have brought people in for them to work with, sent them to conferences and seminars, etc.) They may offer insight and suggestions to the special education or classroom teacher but academic decisions are the responsibility of certified personnel. Non-certified staff carry out the curriculum and academic plans that have been determined by the special education teacher or classroom teacher and they report directly to these individuals.

  One way of using non-certified support staff or paraprofessionals in RTI is to have them provide some of the interventions.  We do some of this at our school by having a paraprofessional work with a child one-on-one or with two students.  We try not to give a paraprofessional more than 2 students because usually these students are working on some very specific skills and require a great deal of attention.

  Another way that we have found to use paraprofessionals is to provide extra support in the classroom. We use paraprofessionals to free up our "experts" to work with children who need the most help.  We use a "flooding" or "pushing in" model in which our special education teacher, Title 1 and reading specialist are working with a small group of students during our literacy block time.  During different times of the day, we flood different grade levels with these three professionals. They work with students that are not reading at grade level and who are grouped together based on their skills to receive intense interventions.  The students that are reading at grade level or above are grouped with the classroom teachers for enrichment or extension.  These groups are very small, usually no more than 5. If they are bigger, then we might bring in a paraprofessional to help.  We ensure that the special education teacher and the Title 1 teacher have some identified students in their groups so that we are meeting funding requirements, but these groups may also contain students who are not identified but still need help in that specific area.  We are able to do this because during this time our paraprofessionals are providing support in the classroom for other students.

  The short answer is that we use paraprofessional to provide support in the classroom so that we can free up our experts to help the kids who need the most help.

  
  Response from Principal Bob Heimbaugh: Non-certified staff in our school includes paraprofessionals that our district hired to assist with instruction, supervision and support for students in a building. These individuals can be very beneficial in the process of providing instruction to children in the RTI process.

  As a principal, I reinforce with staff that in order to maintain the fidelity of instruction, all non-certified staff involved in the instructional process need to be involved in the same professional development as certified staff. During professional development training in our schools and district concerning RTI implementation, paraprofessionals are asked to be trained right beside the teachers. It is important to note that all instruction provided by non-certified staff is under the direct supervision of a certified teacher.

  Each week, teacher grade level literacy teams meet to review data and evaluate student growth. From these meetings, lesson plans are created and paraprofessionals are provided lessons from the teacher for small group instruction.  The paraprofessional is in the classroom teaching her small group with the teacher, who is also involved in small group instruction.  At the end of each day the paraprofessional and teacher review the lesson and make adjustments for the next day. 

  We found that when non-certified staff were involved in the professional development a common language around instruction emerged. Having non-certified staff in the classrooms during core instruction helped to reinforce what they were doing when they worked with their small groups. By involving paraprofessionals in team meetings, everyone was able to maintain systematic and explicit instruction together.

• Can you provide some information on using RTI for speech/language therapy? What type of success has there been? Is it possible to describe the models that have been successful for SLPs?

  Response from Judy Rudebusch, EdD, CCC-SLP: Thanks for the question about speech-language pathologists being involved in RTI. I think there are some exciting possibilities as well as some promising practices already in place. Here are some examples from my experience in Texas:

  SLPs have been providing an in-classroom Tier 1 support program helping students dictate and write stories in addition to developing questioning skills to help peers extend and expand their stories. The purpose of this approach is to catch oral language problems early and provide an intervention to prevent referral and placement in special education.  Here, SLPs are helping with academic difficulties by supporting language skills.  This approach is modeled after a program started in San Diego schools.

  SLPs can also be involved in direct and indirect activities in an RTI framework to support balanced literacy interventions, especially in the areas of phonemic awareness, comprehension, and vocabulary.  SLPs also serve as important members of Problem Solving teams to look at individual student concerns when poor communication skills may result in academic or behavior problems.

  Next year, the Pasadena Independent School District (TX)  is starting two language initiatives conducted by SLPs.  At one school, we will be looking at the effectiveness of using a story lab approach to strengthen English oral language production for ELL students in bilingual classes.  The SLP will work with the second grade bilingual classrooms and their teachers during ESL time and work on grammar, syntax, and story telling. At another school, the SLP is starting a program that boosts the phonological awareness and metalinguistic awareness skills, as part of a balanced literacy approach, through a program she is designing for struggling kindergarten students.  Again, these approaches demonstrate support of language skills which directly scaffolds academic issues a student may have, thus falling under RTI.

  Finally, SLPs are also using the tiered framework of RTI to expedite articulation interventions. In one school district, they have an ArticLab in place for students with one, two or three sound errors which serves as a Tier 2 targeted intervention to clear up articulation errors and prevent referral and/or placement in speech-language therapy. In their initial cohort of 89 students, after about 14 hours of intervention, 9 students continued in the artic lab, 2 students were referred for individual evaluation (a special education referral), and 78 students improved their artic sound errors and required no further need of service.  The artic work uses the RTI framework  by utilizing Early Intervening Services (EIS) which then prevents referral or placement in special education. EIS is a funding strategy, and Tier 2 artic work serves as the activity for prevention of future problems. 

  In another district, SLPs are focusing on articulation to prevent referrals using approaches that center around practice with correct sound production.  This approach was developed by SLPs and implements an RTI-like framework but is not directly within RTI services.

• Can Occupational Therapists provide direct services under RTI or does there need to be an IEP in place for a child to receive OT services?

  Response from Sandra Schefkind, MS, OTR/L: Since 1997, the AOTA has promoted the concept of “workload” rather than “caseload” because it is more reflective of the full scope of therapists’ responsibilities in schools and early intervention settings.  These responsibilities may include work with and on behalf of students including documentation, supervision of OT assistants, travel time, staff consultation, student assessment, staff planning meetings, and more. A workload is reflective of collaborative teamwork and data collection to serve students in the least restrictive environment to promote social participation and academic success. A workload expands the role of the occupational therapy practitioner beyond a direct service model, and is reflective of IDEA law which mandates that services support access, participation, and progress in the natural environment/general curriculum.  I suggest that you review the document entitled Transforming Caseload to Workload in School Based and Early Intervention Occupational Therapy Services.

  The US Dept of Education is promoting a school wide prevention approach within general education. This problem solving model, originally developed for students with learning disorders, has now been expanded to target all students who are at risk for failure. The Response to Intervention (RTI) process provides high quality intervention, continuous progress monitoring and data collection to match student educational and behavioral needs. AOTA has developed a FAQ on RTI as a valuable resource for those in school-based practice, and it can be found on our website under Practitioners and under Children and Youth. You should investigate your State Practice Act (licensure law) to ensure that prescreening and pre-referral activities are in compliance.

• What is the role of a school psychologist in a private school setting?

  Response from Mary Beth Klotz, Ph.D.: You raise a good question and one that does not have a readily available, one-size-fits-all answer. The procedures for use of RTI in private schools for disability identification, including in Catholic parochial schools, will vary to some extent depending on local procedures. What would be advisable (and it sounds like you are doing this already) would be to become very familiar with the components of a RTI process and help your schools adopt those facets that are feasible given their limited staffing and budget. This is what some staff members are doing in public schools where the district or state is in the very early stages of RTI implementation. This might mean revising the universal screenings your schools conduct each year, careful selection of a scientifically based reading program for all students, improving how outcomes from individual student interventions are monitored, etc.

  There are a couple of resources I would recommend as you investigate how to implement RTI in your schools:

  1. You can sign up for the NASP RTI listserv and pose you question there. It would be helpful for you to hear from other school psychologists who are working in private schools.
  
  
  2. Take a look at the resources on the RTI Action Network that address getting started. You will find many suggestions on how to build consensus and the ground work for RTI implementation and scale up.
  
  
  3. NASP has many articles and resources on RTI on their Web site that will be helpful to you.
  
  
  4. Remember that IDEA states that RTI procedures may be used as part of a comprehensive assessment for LD, but are not sufficient alone to determine eligibility. See the articles: Deciphering the Federal Regulations on Identifying Children With Specific Learning Disabilities (NASP Online) and Identifying Learning Disabilities in the Context of Response to Intervention: A Hybrid Model.
  
  
  5. OSEP's IDEA Web site has a very helpful FAQ on RTI.

  
  
• What is the role of the School Counselor in RTI?
  Response from Jill Cook, American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Position Statement:

  Professional school counselors are stakeholders in the development and implementation of the Response to Intervention (RTI) process. Professional school counselors align with the RTI process through the implementation of a comprehensive school counseling program designed to improve student achievement and behavior.

  The Rationale
  Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered approach to help struggling learners. (RTI Action Network, 2008). Guided by student outcome data, RTI can be used to make decisions about general, compensatory, and special education, assisting in the creation of a well-integrated and seamless system of instruction and intervention (Ehren, B, et. al., 2006). Professional school counselors implement a data-driven comprehensive school counseling program that meets the needs of all students and includes the identification of students who are at-risk for not meeting academic and behavioral expectations. Professional school counselors design and implement plans to address the needs of struggling students and collect results data based on the effectiveness of the interventions.

  The Professional School Counselor's Role
  Professional school counselors assist in the academic and behavioral development of students through the implementation of a comprehensive developmental school counseling program based on the ASCA National Model for School Counseling by:

  • Providing all students with a standards-based guidance curriculum to address universal academic, career and personal/social development
  • Analyzing academic and behavioral data to identify struggling students
  • Identifying and collaborating on research-based intervention strategies that are implemented by school staff
  • Evaluating academic and behavioral progress after interventions
  • Revising interventions as appropriate
  • Referring to school and community services as appropriate
  • Collaborating with administrators about RTI design and implementation
  • Advocating for equitable education for all students and working to remove systemic barriers

  The following chart shows how a comprehensive school counseling program aligns with the RTI process.

  RTI Process	Role of the Professional School Counselor
  Tier 1: Universal Core Instructional Interventions: All Students, Preventative and Proactive	1. Standards and Competencies (Foundation) 2. Guidance Curriculum (Delivery System) 3. Individual Student Planning (Delivery) 4. Curriculum Action Plan (Management) 5. Curriculum Results Report (Accountability)
  Tier 2: Supplemental/Strategic Interventions: Students at Some Risk	1. Standards and Competencies (Foundation) 2. Individual Student Planning (Delivery)      a. Small group appraisal       b. Small group advisement 3. Responsive Services (Delivery)      a. Consultation      b. Individual counseling      c. Small group counseling 4. Closing the Gap Action Plan (Management) 5. Closing the Gap Results Report (Accountability)
  Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions: Students at High Risk	1. Standards and Competencies (Foundation) 2. Responsive Services (Delivery)     a. Consultation     b. Individual counseling     c. Small group counseling     d. Referral to school or community services 3. Closing the Gap Action Plan (Management) 4. Closing the Gap Results Report (Accountability)

  Summary
  Professional school counselors implement a comprehensive school counseling program that addresses the needs of all students. Through the review of data, professional school counselors identify struggling students and collaborate with other educators to provide appropriate interventions through the RTI process. Professional school counselors work collaboratively with other educators to remove systemic barriers for all students and implement intervention programs that assist in student success.

  Ehren, B. EdD, Montgomery, J., PhD, Rudebusch, J., EdD, Whitmire, K., PhD, New Roles in Response to Intervention: Creating Success for Schools and Children, November 2006.

  RTI Action Network. Retrieved June 3, 2008 http://rtinetwork.org.

  Shaprio, E. S. "Tiered Instruction and Intervention in a Response-to-Intervention Model." Retrieved June 5, 2008" http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essential/TieredInstruction/ar/ServiceDelivery/1.

• Where does a school psychologist fit into the RTI model?

  Response from Mary Beth Klotz, Ph.D.: School Psychologists are vital contributors in an RTI process. They are trained and experienced in assessment, consultation, academic and intervention planning, program evaluation, and home-school collaboration. NASP, along with several educational associations, wrote a series of fact sheets about the roles of educational personnel and parents in RTI models. See: http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/rtifactsheets.aspx.