1. Response to Intervention (RTI)
Promise and Reality

2. Theory of RTI “Dual Discrepancy” Model Focus on Reading Difficulty
A “multiple gating” model
Purported to
Support eligibility determination of students with learning disabilities;
Early Identification;
Promotes early identification of students at risk for academic failure;
Replaced the “Wait to Fail” Model.

3. Dual Discrepancy
Learning difficulty is detailed into two observable problems
Low academic achievement
Limited “rate of improvement” compared to similar peers
Academic achievement may have multiple reasons
Development
Curriculum exposure
Opportunity to learn
Rate of Improvement may have multiple reasons
Accuracy of learning at time of examination
Fluency of learning at time of examination

4. Basic components of RTI
Tiered system of intervention
Use of progress monitoring assessment
Interventions predicated on “scientifically-based” instruction

5. Research Base of RTI (cf. Hughes and Dexter, 2016)
Lots on Progress monitoring, mostly using CBM (e.g. DIBELS)
Mostly on students without disabilities at the elementary level
Holistic evaluation of programs based
Limited findings
Evidence that Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions are conflated in practice (cf. Sparks, 2015, Balu et al )
Lack of research evidence supporting “scientifically based” reading interventions for culturally/linguistically diverse learners with and without disabilities (cf. Barrera, 2003, Barrera & Liu, 2010)

6. Perceived Benefits of RTI
Enhances instruction and offers a renewed emphasis on “best practice” instruction for all students.
Tailored instruction directly toward any identified academic deficits of students.
Increased understanding of the academic skills of each student in the classroom.
Promotes the collaboration efforts of the general and special education teachers.

7. THE “VERY BASIC” STEPS OF RTI
Implement schoolwide screening measures (e.g., DIBELS and AIMSweb). Benchmark Screenings (Fall/Winter/Spring).
Determine the needs of the students from the collected data.
Follow the three-tier system to make decisions regarding interventions that can be made.
Determine the effectiveness of the chosen implemented intervention.
If intervention shows, from progress monitoring data, no sign of student progress, change the intervention.

8. Tiered System Three-Tier System 75%-85% Monitor Fall/Winter/Spring
Targeted Group Intervention
(General Education Classroom with Support)
(Title 1, Reading Specialist)
▪Some students (at-risk)
▪High efficiency
▪Rapid response
Universal Intervention
(General Education Classroom)
▪All settings
▪All students
▪Preventative
▪Proactive
5%-10%
Monitor
Weekly
Tier 3
10%-15%
Monitor Monthly
Tier 2
75%-85%
Monitor Fall/Winter/Spring
Benchmark Screening
Tier 1
Intensive Individual Intervention
(Special Education)
▪Individual students
▪Assessment- and IEP-driven
▪High intensity
▪Longer duration
Three-Tier System
Adapted from The General Educator’s Guide to Special Education (Maanum, 2009, p. 172).

9. Intervention Strategies
Tier 1 or 2 placement (general education teacher).
Difficult decisions regarding specific interventions or strategies to attempt with a student (problem solving team).
Interventions do include the behavioral and social areas (effects academics).
Interventions (less restrictive to more restrictive).
Jim Wright’s Web site ( is for intervention ideas.

10. Differentiated Instruction Theory
General classroom approach to teach students as individuals
Provide support for individual progress monitoring
Focus on curriculum and standards for all to meet
Not to be confused with individualized instruction

11. Practices Needed for RTI to Work with Diverse Urban Learners
Responsive learning strategies based in student experiences
Curriculum-based Assessment—Checking for learning that has been taught
Examining research-based practices and how they interact with diverse learners
Teaching content and then monitoring progress for acquisition, maintenance, and generalization

12. Roles of Assessments In General and Special Education
General Educators use
Informal assessments
Criterion-referenced
Practice exams for standardized state accountability exams (MCAs, MTELL equivalents)
Special Educators use
Formative curriculum-based assessments
Formal curriculum-based measures
Standardized Academic and Behavioral Assessments
Both Groups must
Evaluate testing data from formal academic , intellectual, behavioral, and adaptive developmental assessments from specialists on IEPs
Observable assessments from other sources including other teacher data available through IEPs

13. Additional Reading
Hughes C. & Dexter, D. (2016). Field Studies of RTI Programs, Revised (available for download at RTI Network,
Sparks, S. (2015) Study: RTI Practice Falls Short of Promise: First Graders Who Were Identified for More Help Fell Further Behind. Education Week, Nov. 11, 2015
Barrera, M. & Liu, K. (2010). Challenges in assessing the academic progress of linguistically diverse exceptional learners through RTI progress monitoring with general outcomes measurement. Theory into Practice Special Issue (J. Klingner & M. Orosco, Eds.), 49 (4),
Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (2),
Barrera, M. (2003). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment for new- or second-language learners with learning disabilities in secondary education settings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(1),