This document discusses Response to Intervention (RTI), focusing on implementation at the primary level. It provides a brief history of RTI, outlining its origins in the 1970s-80s and its establishment as a framework in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. The summary describes the multi-tiered RTI framework, including universal screening and differentiated instruction at Tier 1, more targeted small group interventions at Tier 2, and individualized interventions and evaluations at Tier 3. It also lists some advantages and disadvantages of the RTI model.

1. Response to
Intervention
Susan Fuller and Pamela Tcharkovski
TECP 70
November 12, 2013

2. Abstract
The following presentation discusses Response to
Intervention (RTI) with an emphasis on the primary
level of instruction. Tier one provides universal
screening and effective instruction to insure that
students who are at risk are recognized early. There
are many ways to differentiate instruction in the
classroom to improve student performance. There
are advantages and disadvantages of the RTI
framework. We believe if the framework is
implemented with fidelity it will skew the
achievement bell curve in a positive direction.

3. What is the background and history?
•
1970’s and 80’s Deno and Mirkin found that short frequent
assessments helped manage special education students’ needs.
•
Benjamin Bloom’s (1980) “ Mastery Learning” experiments used
formative assessments as a basis to modify curriculum and
instruction.
•
1991 The initials “RTI” may have been first used by Gresham in the
sense of “ Resistance to Intervention” but with the positive results
it went to “Response to Intervention”.
•
1994 The three tier structure for organizing response to students
originated with researchers like Sugai and Horner seeking ways to
deal with behavioral problems.

4. •
1998 Black and Wiliams meta-analysis documented how using
assessment results to set goals and determine interventions
improves performance.
•
2001 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education Report (Hughes 2011) stated concern about
“instructional casualties”
•
2003 Dual discrepancy model developed by Fuchs measured
both the level of achievement and the rate of student growth.
•
2004 IDEIA allowed states to use RTI as a factor in
determining eligibility for Special Education.

5. Tertiary
Secondary
Primary

6. RTI
• Framework
• School wide
• Designed to
accommodate all learners
• Requires research based
instruction
• Uses data collection over
time.
RTI
• A curriculum
• Just a special education
program
• Require students to “wait
to fail”
• Make placement
decisions based on
“snapshots” of student
performance.

7. Primary
Core curriculum is research-based
Culturally and linguistically responsive to
students
Universal screening to determine students’
current level of performance
Differentiated learning activities
Accommodations
Problem solving to address behavior issues

8. • Differentiated instruction
–
–
–
–
–
–
Flexible Grouping
Visual Aides
Clear Behavioral Objectives
Buddy Reading/ Peer Tutoring
Learning Centers
Technology (smart boards, audio
books, ipad)
– Preferential seating
– Individual attention from teacher

9. Specific Learning Disability (Current
view)
• RTI uses on going assessment rather than a
snapshot to make placement decisions.
• Change from discrepancy model
• Universal screenings
• Regular progress monitoring
• “At Risk” students are identified early
• Supports for meeting the needs of at risk
students are already in place in tier one.
• The thoroughness of the process ensures
correct identification.

10. Advantages
• Improved education for all students
• Students receive interventions that are not too much or too little for
their needs.
• Can identify specific instructional needs for specific learners.
• Students do not have to qualify for special education to receive more
and better instruction
• Feedback teachers can use to improve their own instruction.
• Feedback administrators can use to assess teachers.
• Provides feedback for students and parents.
• Potential to cut expense of services because of fewer referrals.

11. Disadvantages
• Increased burden on classroom teachers extra support is
needed for implementation
• May be poorly executed
• Potential to inadvertently delay special needs referrals.
• Teachers, principals and district officials must believe in
the instructional framework
• Cost of professional development needed to implement
RTI is high
• Time consuming
• Roti requires that decisions about placement are made
based on data taken over a period of time.

12. Jenna
• 8th grader struggling with math
• School uses Accelerated math and STAR math
• STAR math showed Jenna was in the “on watch”
category
• Math teacher monitored biweekly and Jenna
continued to struggle
• Math teacher brought Jenna to 8th grade team
meeting.
• Math teacher suspected computational fluency
challenges
• Math flash student progress report confirmed
fluency issues with subtraction
• Tier two intervention to address fluency was
provided .

13. Billy
• Billy is a first grader
• He knows 80 of the first 100 sight words
• He has extensive background knowledge to apply to
reading and a large vocabulary
• His math assessment is nearly perfect
• He entered first grade at Rigby reading level 8 the
end of year goal is level 10.
• He received OT services in Kindergarten
• His teacher reports that he chooses to work and play
alone when possible
• He lies down in the middle of group time and
continues to pay attention.
• He doesn’t always complete his work on time

14. References
Barnett, D. C. (2007). Achieving Science-Based Practice Through Response to Intervention: What It Might Look Like in
Preschools. Journal Of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 17(1), 31-54.
Callinan, S., Cunningham, E., & Theiler, S. (2013). Revisiting Discrepancy Theory in Learning Disabilities: What Went
Wrong and Why We Should Go Back. Australian Journal Of Guidance And Counselling, 23(1), 1-17.
Harlacher, J. K. (2010). The "I" in RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30-38.
Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary. Theory Into
Practice, 50(1), 4-11. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534909
Noll, B. (2013). Seven ways to kill RTI: even good interventions can go bad if they're not planned and supported well.
Heed some warning signs about Response to Intervention. (R I. P. R T. I.). Phi Delta Kappan, (6), 55.
National Center on Response to Intervention. National Center on Response to Intervention, (2010).Essential components of rti-a
closer look at response to intervention. Retrieved from National Center on Response to Intervention website:
http://www.rti4success.org
National Resource Center on Learning Disabilities. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, (2007).Responsiveness to
intervention in the sld determination process. Retrieved from National Research Center on Learning Disabilities website:
www.nrcld.org
Pittsford Sutherland High School. (n.d.). Response to intervention (rti)-tier 1 strategies. Retrieved from
http://www.pittsfordschools.org/sutherland.cfm?subpage=40414
Renaissance Learning. (2009). Making rti work:a practical guide to using data for a successful "response to intervention"
program. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning.
Searle, M. (2010). What is rti and why should we care?.ASCD, Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109097/chapters/What-Is-RTI-and-Why-Should-...