The Reference Desk, using available evidence and research, provides quick-turnaround responses to questions submitted by education stakeholders around the Northeast and Islands Region. Every Friday, REL-NEI highlights one or two questions submitted to its Reference Desk.
Effective Practices of Response to Intervention
Response to intervention (RTI) is a recurring theme among the questions submitted to the Reference Desk each month: How to implement it properly? How does it impact students? How can it be used to support student achievement? In October 2009, the Reference Desk Digest presented a question regarding RTI; this week’s Digest revisits the topic. It draws upon three Reference Desk Responses to expand upon the research offered in October and to provide resources that identify different applications of RTI, from traditional classrooms to exceptional children, while also suggesting how to successfully practice RTI.
Question
What are effective practices of response to intervention (RTI)?
Research Synopsis
As defined in the RTI Action Network, RTI is “a multi-tier approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs. The RTI process begins with high-quality instruction and universal screening of all children in the general education classroom. Struggling learners are provided with interventions at increasing levels of intensity to accelerate their rate of learning…. Progress is closely monitored to assess both the learning rate and level of performance of individual students. Educational decisions about the intensity and duration of interventions are based on individual student response to instruction. RTI is designed for use when making decisions in both general education and special education, creating a well-integrated system of instruction and intervention guided by child outcome data.”
Reference Desk Researchers found that several states provide general guidelines for RTI and that models are articulated for both literacy and mathematics curriculla. Specific differences between elementary and secondary literacy interventions include: the number of teachers of instruction, narrative vs. expository writing, and the focus of reading skills.
Publicly Available Resources
- Models of Response to Intervention in the Northwest Region States. Stepanek, J. and Peixotto, K.; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance; Issues and Answers Report, REL 2009–No. 079; September 2009; 55 pages.
From page i, “This report describes state-level efforts to support implementation of response to intervention (RTI) in the Northwest Region states…. All five states provided guidance on research-based curriculum and instruction, collection and analysis of assessment data, research-based interventions, fidelity, and teaming.” From pages 9–10, “The state education agencies played a variety of roles in guiding and supporting the use of assessments for RTI. Some states provided access to tools, while others focused on helping districts select appropriate assessments. All five states had training or information to support data analysis.” The report also finds that three states—Alaska, Idaho, and Montana—provided assessment tools for districts and schools. Alaska developed its own online assessment tool, the Alaska Computerized Formative Assessments (ACFA), to monitor students’ progress against the statewide assessment. Idaho provided districts access to AIMSweb, while Montana provided access to both AIMSweb and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) for schools participating in the RTI initiative.
- State Policies and Procedures and Selected Local Implementation Practices In Response to Intervention in the Six Southeast Region States. Sawyer, R., Holland, D., and Detgen, A.; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance; Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008–No. 063; September 2008; 55 pages.
This report describes how six state education agencies and three local education agencies are adopting and implementing response to intervention. One of the state agencies, in Georgia, has instituted a fourth tier of RTI: “Tier 4: specially designed instruction and learning. Developed specifically for students who meet eligibility criteria for special program placement. This can include adapted content, methodology, or instructional delivery, such as the Gifted Education Program and English language learner programs.” (p. 46)
- Meeting the Needs of Significantly Struggling Learners in High School: A Look at Approaches to Tiered Intervention. Duffy, H.; National High School Center, American Institutes for Research; 2007; 14 pages.
From page 3, “This brief first defines the RTI model, drawing from various examples established in K–8 settings (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2003). The brief then explores implications of applying RTI to the high school level and provides resources appropriate for this application. In particular, this brief points to the promise that RTI constructs hold for monitoring instruction and learning for all students at the high school level and specifically for monitoring the success of targeted interventions focused on transitions and dropout prevention.”
The Reference Desk also found these organizations to be helpful in learning more about RTI:
- RTI Action Network
“The RTI Action Network is dedicated to the effective implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) in school districts nationwide. Our goal is to guide educators and families in the large-scale implementation of RTI so that each child has access to quality instruction and that struggling students—including those with learning disabilities—are identified early and receive the necessary supports to be successful. The RTI Action Network is a program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, funded by the Cisco Foundation and in partnership with the nation’s leading education associations and top RTI experts.”
- National Center on Response to Intervention
Funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the center’s mission is to provide technical assistance to states and districts and to build the capacity of states to assist districts in implementing proven models for RTI. The center’s work is organized into four service areas: 1) knowledge production activities; expert trainings and follow-up activities (both face-to-face and at a distance); information dissemination activities; and “a rigorous center evaluation, with formative assessments to help improve the delivery of our services in states and districts across the country.”
- National Center on Student Progress Monitoring
To meet the challenges of implementing effective progress monitoring, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded this center for five years. Housed at the American Institutes for Research, it wasa national technical-assistance and dissemination center dedicated to the implementation of scientifically based student progress monitoring. Although the project came to an end, the website continues to include a library of resources addressing the role of progress monitoring in a response-to-intervention framework.
Download the Full Responses
If this material brings up questions of your own, please submit a new request here. If you’re interested in learning more about the Reference Desk, read about us here. And finally, share thoughts, experiences, and resources of your own in our Feedback section below.
