RTI is an instructional model used to better ensure that all students learn how to read and write. An effective model will reach 80% of learners at the first level of instruction. Tier 1 instruction should include differentiation and scaffolding to reach students on the cusp of not ingesting and owning the necessary skills for knowing how to effectively read and write. Tier 2 instruction is for students not able to grasp the instruction in Tier 1 and should include more precise explicit, systematic instruction. This instruction is usually received in a small group environment with other students needing similar instruction. Tier 3 and above levels of instruction should be assessed, direct, and strategic instruction that has the potential of meeting the needs of each student at these levels. Students receiving Tier 3 instruction often have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). These students usually receive one-on-one instruction and are often part of special education classes. Some of these students receive part of their instruction in a regular classroom, as well as individualized instruction outside of the classroom. Each model will be different to meet the needs of students present. Each model usually includes different essential educators that make the gears of the model work effectively. Individual schools often use “more user-friendly names” for their RTI model that better fit the community its serving.
Individual schools in partnership with the district leaders develop school instructional leadership teams for effective implementation and sustainment of a RTI model. The district should provide the knowledge of the framework for a RTI program and be available to provide support and direction to the school leadership team. School-level leadership teams might include the (a) principal, (b) school psychologist, (c) educational diagnostician, (d) reading specialist, (e) special education teacher, (f) general education teacher, (g) occupational therapist, (h) literacy coach, and (i) the school counselor (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011; Tyre et al., 2012). School leadership teams are responsible for analyzing data, student placement, and instruction (Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009a; Nellis, 2012; Tyre, Feuerborn, & Beisse, 2012). The roles of the leadership members should reflect the needs of present students.
School administrators or principals are key to effective implementation of the RTI model (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b; Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; White, Polly, & Audette, 2012). Administrators are responsible for setting the direction and culture of the school and professionally developing individuals at the school-level, in relation to implementing RTI with fidelity (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). These individuals should possess both interpersonal and communication skills to effectively lead or participate in conversations that provide both critical and positive feedback about the RTI process (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). This feedback should be given with (a) respect and should take note of their input, (b) provide data to support the feedback, and (c) focus on student learning and outcomes. Administrators are also responsible for developing “risk free zones” to encourage open collaboration. They should focus on empowering educators to effectively provide instruction to meet the needs of all students (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima et al., 2009b). Administrators are also responsible for “establishing an infrastructure for school-wide student screening” and “ensure that student data is properly managed” (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). These individuals should “conduct routine classroom walk-throughs, observations, and discussions to provide feedback and ensure reliability” of the RTI program (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). Administrators are usually the backbone of the RTI model.
More about other possible leadership team members in my next post.
References
Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501. http://doi/10.1002/TRTR.01073
Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.
Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum assessment and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for Evaluation & Education, 1-12.
Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention implementation. Psychology in the Schools. 49(3), 245-256.
Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C., & Carroll, A. (2011). Response to intervention: An opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School Counseling, 14(3), 211-221.
Tyre, A., Feuerborn, L., Beisse, K., & McCready, C. (2012). Creating readiness for response to intervention: An evaluation of readiness assessment tools. Contemporary School Psychology, 16, 103-114.
White, R., Polly, D,. & Audette, R. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90. http://doi/10.1080/02568543.2011.63206
