Click on the movie below and find out what other choices the S-Team has to make about RTI (time: 0:40).
Transcript: Other Choices The S-Team members now think that RTI might solve the problems they have faced trying to expedite help to students with weak reading skills. They also think that RTI may well solve many of their frustrations with the current method for identifying students with learning disabilities. But the S-Team has more decisions to make. Ms. Jacobs tells her colleagues that there are a couple approaches to RTI being used across the country and even in different districts in their state. Before moving forward, the team needs to learn more about the two basic approaches to RTI. One is called the problem-solving approach; the other is called the standard protocol approach.
If a school or district elects to utilize an RTI approach to intervene early and to identify students with learning disabilities, the federal government requires a multi-tiered model, though it does not specify a requisite set of procedures. Because of this, many options are available for the implementation of RTI, though in general two basic approaches to RTI are followed. These are described below.
The two most commonly used RTI approaches are problem solving and standard protocol. Although these two approaches are sometimes described as being very different from one another, they actually have several elements in common. In practice, many schools and districts combine or blend aspects of the two approaches to fit their needs. Regardless, to better understand them, these two approaches are described separately.
The problem solving approach has been used by school districts for more than two decades and its creation is often credited to the Heartland Area Education Agency in Johnston, Iowa. The process that educators work through in each tier is illustrated in the figure to the right. For each student of concern, a school-based team of professionals (sometimes referred to as teacher assistance teams or instructional support teams) works together at each tier to:
The utilization of a team for selecting interventions and making decisions allows for more brainstorming and flexibility throughout the problem solving approach process. Because the school-based team has a wide variety of intervention options from which to choose, a student can receive instruction that is aligned more closely with his or her individual or specific academic needs. On the other hand, the quality of the instruction depends on the skills, knowledge, and training of the team personnel who plan each individualized program.
Universal Screening or Class-Wide Assessment. Universal screenings are used to identify students’ current levels of academic achievement. Students whose achievement is less than desired are identified.
Tier 1: Class- or School-Wide Interventions (Primary Prevention). All students receive high-quality classroom instruction using empirically validated techniques. Students receive frequent progress monitoring of academic skills, and those who do not meet desired benchmarks become eligible for Tier 2 services.
Condition or characteristic of having been proven through high-quality research to be accurate or to produce positive results.
Tier 2: Targeted Interventions (Secondary Prevention). Students who do not make adequate progress in response to Tier 1 instruction receive more targeted instruction (i.e., Tier 2). The school-based team selects individually tailored, evidence-based interventions because it is assumed that each student will respond to an intervention differently. Students with similar needs, as identified by the assessments, can receive small-group instruction together. For example, students who exhibit phonemic awareness difficulties can be grouped together, while students with fluency problems can receive separate small-group instruction. Student progress is monitored frequently (1-2 times per week) in order to determine the effectiveness of the intervention plan. Interventions are not implemented for set periods of time but, rather, are modified or discontinued based on student progress data.
Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions (Tertiary Prevention). State and district policies determine the options at Tier 3. In one option, students who still do not make adequate progress in response to Tier 2 instruction can receive more intensive instruction. A school-based team makes decisions about the validated techniques used to provide more intensive instruction. In another option, students receive special education services if abbreviated or comprehensive evaluation results verify the existence of a disability.
The second major approach is called the standard protocol approach (sometimes referred to as standard treatment protocol) and is supported by a strong research base. The words standard (that is, consistent, the same for all students) and protocol (that is, predetermined format or delivery system) describe this approach to RTI. This option uses one validated intervention, selected by the school, to improve the academic skills of its struggling students.
Universal Screening or Class-Wide Assessment . Universal screenings are used to identify students’ current levels of academic achievement. Students whose achievement is less than desired are identified.
Tier 1: Class- or School-Wide Interventions (Primary Prevention). All students receive high-quality classroom instruction using empirically validated techniques. Students receive frequent progress monitoring of academic skills, and those who do not meet desired benchmarks become eligible for Tier 2 services.
Condition or characteristic of having been proven through high-quality research to be accurate or to produce positive results.
Tier 2: Targeted Interventions (Secondary Prevention). The standard protocol provides all students receiving Tier 2 with the same, empirically validated intervention. This intervention is often provided in a small-group setting for a set period (anywhere between 10–20 weeks), with frequent progress monitoring. Students within the small groups may possess heterogeneous or homogeneous skills. Typically, the validated standard protocol includes instruction in several sets of skills so that each child’s needs can be met, even with heterogeneous grouping. For example, a small group might include one student who has problems with reading fluency, another who has poor phonemic awareness, and another who has difficulties with phonics skills. The intervention the group members receive is the same, with time devoted to each skill area (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension).
Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Interventions (Tertiary Prevention). State and district policies determine the options at Tier 3. In one of these, students who still do not make adequate progress with Tier 2 intervention can receive more intensive interventions. In another option, students receive special education services if abbreviated or comprehensive evaluation results verify the existence of a disability.
Because a single, consistent intervention is used, it is easier to ensure accurate implementation or fidelity. Additionally, a variety of support staff (such as paraprofessionals, tutors, or parent volunteers) can deliver the instruction; however, it is critical that they receive comprehensive training before assuming their instructional responsibilities. They also need to receive ongoing support and professional development while implementing the standard protocol procedures to ensure that the intervention is correctly provided.
The degree to which an intervention is implemented accurately, following the guidelines of its developers.
The table below reviews some key features of these two basic approaches to RTI. Notice that both utilize universal screening, multiple tiers, early intervening services, validated interventions, and student progress monitoring to inform decisions. The main differences between the two approaches (also highlighted in the table) lie in how instructional decisions and placement are made and in the number of interventions used with individual students.
Frequent progress monitoring is conducted to assess struggling students’ performance levels and rates of improvement.
A form of assessment in which student learning is evaluated on a regular basis in order to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and instructors.
A team makes instructional decisions based on an individual student’s performance. Struggling students are presented with a variety of interventions, based on their individual needs and performance data.
An instructional technique designed to improve or remediate a certain set of skills.
Let’s highlight some of the major points found in the table comparing the problem solving and the standard protocol approaches:
Click to hear Sharon Vaughn’s perspective on a balanced approach to RTI (time: 1:55).
Sharon Vaughn, PhD
Professor of special education
Director of the Vaughn Gross Reading Center
University of Texas, Austin
Transcript: Sharon Vaughn, PhD
It seems to me that there are several advantages to standard protocols. Perhaps most important, we have evidence that standard protocols have demonstrated effectiveness with the majority of students at risk. And, when these approaches are ineffective, we then have greater confidence that the students for whom they were less successful really require a special education or special instruction. Thus, when students don’t respond to these standard protocols, it could be for reasons other than lack of instruction. That’s why I advantage standard protocols when providing response-to-intervention. In my judgment, it doesn’t mean that people want to give up the interactive problem-solving process of thinking as a professional community for children and about what practices make sense for these students. Nor does it mean that we will do all of these in the absence of considering the context in which children learn, and the context of classrooms, communities, and teachers. But I do think schools that lead without a standard protocol type are vulnerable because they do not provide reliable information about discerning whether risk is a result of poor instruction or whether students have special needs. At this time, we simply do not know enough to say there is just one answer or one approach. It actually reminds me of a joke that people say which is, “You know, before I had any children, I had one theory about child rearing. But after I had three children, I had fifteen theories about child rearing.” And I think it’s very much the same thing with RTI. We can come up with one idea about how Tier 2 and Tier 3 are going to work, and then as we start implementing it, the craft knowledge from expert professionals with the day-to-day problems that come up with real children in real settings will give us the opportunity to adjust these approaches.
The IRIS Center Peabody College Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37203 [email protected]. The IRIS Center is funded through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Grant #H325E220001. The contents of this website do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Sarah Allen.
Copyright 2024 Vanderbilt University. All rights reserved.
* For refund and privacy policy information visit our Help & Support page.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Ok
