Paper Number: FY 2006-8

February 2006

Technical Assistance Paper

12740

The Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Purpose

Response to intervention (RtI) is referenced in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act as well as

in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization of 2004. RtI represents

a systematic method for evaluating the needs of all students and for fostering positive student

behaviorally. This document also provides background and initial information about the new

option under IDEA 2004 and includes information/guidance to help make preliminary decisions

regarding the possible use of RtI in determination of eligibility for exceptional student education.

This document is an initial step in the extensive professional development necessary for the full

and successful implementation of RtI. Appendix A contains definitions of the federal and state

initiatives referenced in this technical assistance paper (TAP) that relate to and may be used to

support RtI.

This TAP is not intended to dictate action but to encourage it. It is not intended to prepare the

reader fully for implementation of RtI because successful implementation will involve extensive

professional development efforts. This TAP addresses how high quality RtI practices may con-

Response to intervention is defined as the change in behavior or performance as a function of an

intervention (Gresham, 1991). The response to intervention (RtI) model is a multi-tiered ap-

proach to providing services and interventions to students at increasing levels of intensity based

on progress monitoring and data analysis. Rate of progress over time is used to make important

REFER QUESTIONS TO:

Heather Diamond

ESE Program Development &

Services

325 West Gaines Street, Room 601

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

personnel, and individuals, or from program compliance monitoring

BUREAU OF EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATION AND STUDENT SERVICES

educational decisions, including possible determination of eligibility for exceptional education

services. Although the instruction and interventions encompassed within the RtI model may

involve many different levels of intensity and individualization, they are usually considered to

fall within three broad classes or tiers. Primary (intervention tier 1 [IT1]) interventions consist of

The following conclusions are the collective result of research referenced at the end of this TAP:

• Students receive interventions based on reliable and valid data earlier than in the “wait to

fail” scenario (discrepancy requirement);

• RtI identifies specific skill deficits, whereas teacher referrals are more frequently general

statements of need;

• Scientifically-based interventions are used more frequently and earlier;

• Racial disproportionality is reduced in programs for students with learning disabilities

and mental handicaps;

• Greater numbers of at-risk students achieve benchmarks;

• Adequate yearly progress (benchmarks) and disaggregated data (NCLB) move focus of

progress;

• Effective interventions result from a combination of valid and reliable information from

assessment and from good problem solving;

• Progress monitoring is done best with valid and reliable assessments that are sensitive to

small changes in student academic and social behavior;

• Interventions must be evidence-based (NCLB/IDEA);

• Response to intervention (RtI) is the best measure of problem severity;

• Program eligibility (initial and continued) decisions are best made based on RtI because it

links directly to instruction;

• Staff training and support (e.g., coaching) improve intervention skills; and

within IT2, then move forward to receive more intensive IT3 services or backward to receive less

intensive IT1 services. The student’s level of need dictates the level of support. The actual length

of time that an intervention is implemented depends on the student’s response to the intervention

and realistic time periods required for the target skills to develop. It is possible that students will

accessible curriculum delivered in the general classroom setting. Some students may display

significant progress but continue to need supports. These students may continue in IT2 or move

back to IT1 if the level of support required is more minimal. However, students who are not

successful with IT2 services despite appropriate interventions over time may be considered for

IT3 services. A student’s level of risk is assessed based on how much of a gap exists between the

marks. Levels of risk may be labeled as “none,” “low,” “moderate,” and “high,” which are pre-

assigned levels based on student performance on measurements like DIBELS. When the perfor-

mance of a student indicates that the level of risk has changed from greater to lesser or when the

ing progress.

Because students struggle to achieve for a variety of reasons, the goal of assessment within each

IT is to determine the barriers that inhibit learning and to alter instruction accordingly. Barriers

may include an existing or identified disability, insufficient or inadequate instruction, poor

attendance, limited academic engagement, emotional or behavioral concerns, limited opportuni-

ties for developmental enrichment, and/or limited English proficiency. Parents are an invaluable

source of information in the identification of barriers affecting the progress of a student. When

these factors are eliminated as the reasons for inadequate progress and the student requires IT3

for RtI systematically addresses the ultimate question: what works for this student who is in need

• Parents;

• General education teachers;

• Site-based administrators; and

1. Provide core instructional program using scientifically validated curriculum;

2. Establish school-wide screening schedule, such as review of reading and math data

minimally three times per year to identify each student’s level of proficiency;

7. Monitor integrity of classroom instruction by site-based administrator(s) and/or instruc-

tional coaches;

8. Document interventions and measured growth in the academic improvement plan (AIP)

and/or the behavioral intervention plan (BIP); and

9. Identify students who continue to lag behind the group on critical measures of perfor-

mance for additional supports at IT2.

Who is involved?

• Students who require additional academic supports including the manipulation of instruc-

• General education teachers;

1. Continue to track growth for all students in the class;

2. Conduct individual screenings;

3. Identify specific strengths and weaknesses of individual students;

4. Address barriers and assess outcomes related to barriers (existing or identified disability,

insufficient or inadequate instruction, poor attendance, limited academic engagement,

emotional or behavioral concerns, and/or limited English proficiency);

5. Integrity of classroom instruction and interventions monitored by site-based

administrator(s) and/or instructional coaches;

6. Make a decision about effectiveness of instruction;

9. Implement supplemental interventions;

and/or the behavioral intervention plan (BIP);

12. Narrow the focus of instruction to maximize the impact on student performance; and

13. Increase academic engaged time (AET) to the curriculum in the area of concern.

Who is involved?

• Students who require intensive, small group, or individual interventions of longer dura-

tion to increase the rate of progress over that achieved in IT2 services;

• Exceptional student education teachers.

1. Plan and provide targeted content, specialized instruction, instruction at extraordinary

intensity (time) and focus (targeted instruction) either individually or in small groups;

2. Conduct individual assessments designed to measure student progress in the targeted

learning areas to determine specific patterns of skill that the individual has and does not

have for the purpose of designing effective instruction to remediate deficits;

3. Multiple interventions occur for a period of time necessary to determine which instruc-

4. Identify interventions that improve student performance;

disability, insufficient or inadequate instruction, poor attendance, limited academic,

engagement, emotional or behavioral concerns, limited opportunities for developmental

enrichment, and or limited English proficiency); and

8. Interventions may or may not include the provision of special education support such as

direct services from ESE personnel.

How May RtI Apply to the Improvement of Students’ Social Behavior?

The application of RtI to address the social behavior of students parallels its use with academic

behaviors. The RtI process is used to assess the degree to which student behavior responds

positively to interventions and the degree to which the behavior reflects the school expectations

for peer behavior. The data collected should be responsive to small changes in student behavior

and should be collected frequently enough to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.

At IT1, data are collected to determine the effectiveness of universal (e.g., school-wide positive

• Does the behavior level of the target student differ significantly from that of the peer

group? Alternatively, does a gap exist?

If a significant number of students are not responding to the school-wide discipline plan, then the

skills training, anger control training, counseling groups), are made available to target students

when IT1 data suggest that the universal interventions are ineffective. Behavior data continue to

be collected on target students throughout IT2 interventions. IT2 interventions are continued

when the data demonstrate that the behavior of the target student is moving closer to benchmarks

or peer group expectations. IT2 interventions can be discontinued when data demonstrate that

the target student’s behavior is within peer expectation and is maintained by the universal inter-

vention. If evidence-based interventions are implemented successfully and for an appropriate

period of time without evidence that the target student’s behavior is moving toward peer expecta-

tions, then tier three interventions are considered.

services generally require individually developed interventions delivered with a frequency and

student cannot maintain improved levels of behavior without the availability of intensive sup-

portive services (IT3), then the student may be considered for special education eligibility, as

appropriate. For students with behavioral and emotional difficulties, special education eligibility

usually is considered when a separate setting is required or the services of additional qualified

personnel are required throughout the school day.

What Resources Are Available for Assisting in the Selection of Interventions?

One resource for the selection of interventions for a variety of content areas including both

mathematics and reading is the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which was established in

2002 by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences to provide

educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central and trusted source of

scientific evidence of what works in education. The WWC aims to promote informed education

improve student outcomes. The WWC is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s

More than 90% of students placed in special education programs for learning disabilities (LD)

are referred for deficits in reading skills. Vellutino et al. (1996) noted that since the discrepancy

interventions. Reports reviewing, not recommending, a variety of materials can be found at http:/

/www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/table.asp.

To facilitate student proficiency in mathematics, concepts are best learned through strategies that

include guided instruction, hands-on real world problem solving, and reflective thinking. When

students experience difficulties in achieving proficiency in mathematics, prompt interventions

are necessary. Prime: Prompt Intervention in Mathematics Education, edited by Sigrid Wagner

early interventions for struggling students.

catered to facilitating student opportunities for learning mathematics. In addition, each topic is

followed with classroom implications that are based on national curriculum standards.

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, by the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM), is a resource that provides the PreK-12 recommendations for promoting

student mastery of the concepts and skills in mathematics. Research supports the constructivist

approach to teaching mathematics. Students construct meaning based on context, personal

experiences, and relevance. Mathematical literacy and understanding are developed within the

strands of number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and prob-

ability. Students apply the knowledge of the former through problem solving, reasoning and

proof, communication, connections, and representation. This resource is the guide for standard-

document.

severe discrepancy between ability and achievement in one or more of seven areas along with

exclusion of other causes. Florida State Board of Education Rule specified the discrepancy

requirement for determining eligibility for a specific learning disability (SLD). Although criteria

were established and implemented, decisions about best methods to determine significant dis-

Disproportionality, delayed services, lack of connection between evaluation and instruction, and

elevated numbers of students being identified as SLD are among the criticisms with documented

evidence. Additionally, there is extreme variance among the states in criteria for determining

eligibility. Leading researchers proposed the response to intervention (RtI) model as a more

educationally relevant option. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) established the

National Research Council on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) as part of the learning disabilities

(LD) initiative leading to the inclusion of the following in the reauthorization of IDEA 2004

where Section 614 (6)(B) states that “[i]n determining whether a child has a specific learning

disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to

state education agency must adopt criteria to be used consistently by the public agency for

The reauthorization of IDEA 2004 creates a significant alternative to determining whether a

student is eligible for special education services as a student with a specific learning disability.

That alternative is called “response to intervention” and is a part of an intervention method that

has proven effective in both special and general education. In preparation for final federal regula-

tion provisions and subsequent revisions to our state board of education rule to reflect the

changes accordingly, professionals are encouraged to learn about RtI, disseminate related techni-

cal information about the process, and promote positive discussions surrounding the ultimate

benefits to students.

including reading coaches, to implement proven methods of scientifically based reading instruc-

tion in classrooms in order to prevent reading difficulties through assistance to teachers serving

students in grades K-3. This competitive sub-grant process ensures that Florida school districts

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. The act contains four basic

education reform principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local

control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been

proven to work. The purpose of the act is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and sig-

nificant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state

academic achievement standards.

tricts toward enabling all students to meet the State’s academic achievement standards. Bench-

mark measurements target the performance and participation of various subgroups based on race

or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, and English proficiency. The goal of NCLB is to

environments in which people function and recreate such that they will experience reductions in

their problem behaviors and increases in positive functioning. Attention is focused on creating

and sustaining school environments that improve lifestyle results by making problem behavior

less effective, efficient, and relevant and desired behavior more functional.

that can be used to make decisions about the effectiveness of instructional programs and inter-

ventions based on data. It is essential during each step in the RtI approach. Structured problem

solving involves clearly defining and validating the problem, analyzing the problem, developing

a plan of intervention, implementing the plan, and evaluating the results.

group’s performance and progress through data collection. A consistent monitoring plan is

to make decisions during the problem solving process.

A Classroom Scenario

skills. Upon implementing an evidence-based reading curriculum as designated by Reading First,

75% of the students demonstrated expected progress towards meeting benchmarks. Therefore,

IT1 interventions were successful for 75% of the students in the classroom when evidence-based

instruction was implemented. Five students in John’s classroom will require additional interven-

tions in order to meet benchmarks.

Additional information (e.g., cumulative folder review, parental conference, assessment data)

was collected for each of the five students in John’s class who will require additional instruc-

ing classroom benchmarks. The remaining student received further intervention including a

change in incentive for being on-time and a consultation with the truancy officer, which resulted

in the desired increase in academic engaged time.

Data collected on the other two students indicate significant deficiencies in comprehension and

fluency. An intervention for reading comprehension was implemented in a small group, and

academic intervention and made expected growth towards meeting benchmarks. He will continue

to receive these interventions until the discrepancy between his performance and that of his peers

has closed. The remaining student has demonstrated growth but has yet to respond at an accept-

able rate of progress. Other barriers that may be affecting his progress have been addressed and

consent, the team must ensure that all activities required prior to referral under State Board of

Education Rule 6A-6.0331, including all screenings, have been completed. The multidisciplinary

team, including the parent, will meet to review all data collected and to determine whether the

student requires individualized, intensive continuing services in an exceptional student education

(ESE) program to maintain adequate progress.

IT1 of the RtI model: Tom is in a kindergarten classroom with a beginning teacher. She teaches

using primarily theme-based projects. The students enjoy her class, but second semester, Tom’s

report card indicates that he is not making adequate progress in reading compared to his class-

May, Tom is showing significant progress in the critical areas of reading growth.

Return to IT1 of the RtI model: The multidisciplinary team meets and agrees that Tom should be

promoted to first grade and be placed in a teacher’s class that uses direct instruction to teach

reading. The teacher continues to monitor Tom’s progress and determines by mid year that he is

reading on grade level.

Further IT2 or IT3 of the RtI model: Not Applicable

Eligibility for ESE services: Not Applicable

IT1 of the RtI model: Both of Susie’s parents are from Puerto Rico and do not speak fluent

IT2 of the RtI model: As a result, Susie goes to the ESOL classroom each afternoon for a phonics

and fluency lesson. They participate in English word drills and explore the relationship between

English and Spanish sounds. She also reads decodable books in English with the teacher’s

support. Susie is still reading quite slowly by the end of the school year.

will continue to close the discrepancy between her performance and that of her peers.

Eligibility for ESE services: Not Applicable

IT1 of the RtI model: Joe is a third grade student who has missed 45 days already this school

year, and it is only January. The guidance counselor has met with his mother about attendance,

asleep during class. Joe is reading on a second grade level. His teacher uses the third grade state

worker is able to help get mom a home health aid on week nights. DIBELS scores show that Joe

is low in fluency, and he makes many word reading errors on third grade text. In addition, his

performance on SAT10 at the end of the previous year indicated that he also struggles with

reading comprehension. Joe is transferred to a third grade intervention class that uses a core

reading program more suitable to his reading level and instructional needs and that has a smaller

class size than his previous class. Joe is coming to school more regularly and reports he is now

sleeping at night. Joe is participating well in the intensive reading program but is still not show-

ing progress on DIBELS.

IT3 of the RtI model: Starting in March, Joe is pulled aside for specific work on phonics and

fluency three mornings a week for an additional 30 minutes of individualized instruction. Mul-

Eligibility for ESE services: Joe is referred for evaluation under the IDEA. Joe’s parents give

tests. Once data analysis occurs, the multidisciplinary team considers whether Joe demonstrates a

need for special education services.

Batsche, G., Elliott J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski. J.F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D.J., Schrag,

J., & Tilly, W.D. (2005). Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implemen-

tation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.

Batsche, G. M. and Knoff, H. M. (1995). Best practices in linking assessment to intervention. In

Brown-Chidsey, R., (2005). Scaling educational assessments to inform instruction for all stu-

dents: Response to Intervention as essential educational science. Trainer’s Forum Peri-

odical of the Trainers of School Psychologists, 24(3), 1-8.

Education Development Center. (200). The action reflection process. Retrieved September 18,

Fletcher, J.M., Morris, R.D., & Lyon, G.R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning

disabilities: An integrative perspective. Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., Lipsey, M.W., & Roberts, P.H. (2003). Is “learning dis

abilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences

between low achievers with and without the label. Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sym-

tional needs of diverse learners in the context of general education. Kansas State Depart-

Lenz, K., Graner, P., and Adams, G. 2003. Learning expressways: Building academic relation-

ematics. Reston, VA. NCTM

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NCRLD) (2003). Responsiveness to Inter-

vention Symposium: Kansas City, Missouri. Available at http://nrcld.org/symposium

2003/index.html

Sutton, John and Krueger, Alice. (2002) Edthoughts: What We Know About Mathematics Teach

ing and Learning. Aurora, CO. McRel

Swanson, H.L., Harris, K.R., Graham, S. (2003) Handbook of Learning Disabilities. Specific

Learning Disabilities: Building Consensus for Identification and Classification. London,

England.

Swierzbin, B., Anderson, M. E., Spicuzz, R., Walz, L. and Thrulow, M. L./ (1999). Feasibility

Torgesen, J.K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early inter-

readers in reading first schools. Available at http://www.fcrr.org/staffpresentations/

Publication1a.pdf

Torgesen, J.K., & Hayes, L. (2003). Diagnosis of reading difficulties following inadequate

performance on state level reading outcome measures. The CORE Reading Expert

(Newsletter for the Consortium on Reading Excellence), Emeryville, CA, Fall.

http://www.corelearn.com/Newsletters/2003%20Fall%20Newsletter.pdf

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S., (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to

instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and

Practice, 18(3), 137-146.