# data[].attributes.body
This powerpoint goes into detail describing tier ed instruction, the critical features of Tier 3 instruction for both math and reading, the benefits and challenges to using RTI, and how administrators can support and promote RTI.

# data[].attributes.body
Tier 3 Math interventions strategies include using Concrete-Representational-Abstract, modeling problem solving thinking, using precise mathematical language, progress monitor frequently, visual guided practice, visual fluency cards, virtual sort cards, and online practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Delta Math Tier 2 intervention lessons were repurposed to create the new Tier 3 lessons. Based on feedback from tier 3 instruction providers, the new Tier 3 lesson lessons were designed to:

Stretch the Concrete-Representational-Abstract instructional sequence to include more time to explore each instructional stage.

Remove all grade level references to avoid emotional barriers that might occur when students engage in standards from 2 or more previous grade levels.

Eliminate the re-engagement session using the Guided Review to provide more time for concrete exploration.

The Tier 3 Intervention Cycle Overview organizes the following evidence-based recommendations to support the Delta Math Tier 3 lesson resources:

"I do, we do, you do together, you do alone" gradual release model

Personal goal setting

Student reflection

Progress monitoring

"Build-Draw-Write" instructional progression

Click on a grade level to the left to access the new lessons for each tier 3 standard.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Delta Math Tier 2 intervention lessons were repurposed to create the new Tier 3 lessons. Based on feedback from tier 3 instruction providers, the new Tier 3 lesson lessons were designed to: Stretch the Concrete-Representational-Abstract instructional sequence to include more time to explore each instructional stage.

# data[].attributes.headline
Determining Students Who Receive Tier 3 Intervention

# data[].attributes.subject
Determining Students Who Receive Tier 3 Intervention

# data[].attributes.body
This module goes into the eligibility process of determining whether a student is eligible for Tier 3 services. This process includes: referral, evaluation, and determination of eligibility for special education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Page 4: Determining Which Students Will Receive Tier 3 Intervention

Most of the students who require Tier 3 intervention have difficulty decoding words, reading fluently, and comprehending what they have read. Additionally, they often lack:

Phonological awareness and knowledge of the alphabetic principle
Phonological awareness
Phonological awareness is the recognition that spoken language can be broken into smaller components and the ability to manipulate these components.

Alphabetic principle
The alphabetic principle refers to the relationship between sounds and written letters.

Verbal knowledge and strategies that are needed for reading comprehension

Experience with letters, print, and language prior to entering kindergarten

Motivation to read or an appreciation for reading, often due directly to their reading struggles

Listen as Doug Fuchs describes some of the other characteristics of students who might benefit from Tier 3 intervention (time: 1:12).

Doug Fuchs, PhD
Nicholas Hobbs Endowed Chair in Special Education and Human Development
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

/wp-content/uploads/module_media/rti05_tier3_media/audio/rti_tier3_audio_04_doug.mp3
View Transcript
Transcript: Doug Fuchs, PhD

Stephanie Alitayba and I did a literature review several years ago. And we were looking at young children, and we were looking in the area of reading. Lexical retrieval was problematic. Other kinds of language functioning was weak. Attention was a big issue. A lot of kids who show up as unresponsive in the primary grades have very poor attention. They're distractible. They're disorganized. They're often off-task. They have difficulty maintaining focus, all of which really conspire against such kids functioning in complex and stimulating general education classrooms. As the kids get older, there is an entirely different additional layer of problematic behaviors. There's very low motivation. There's negative attitudes towards school and learning. There's self perception problems that complicate things. There's deliberate resistance to efforts in instruction. There's no one thing, two things, three things. There's usually a constellation, and the constellation changes as the children mature.

The Tier 3 Eligibility Process
Not Making Adequate Progress in Tier 2
To determine whether a student requires the more intensive, individualized intervention provided in Tier 3, it is first necessary for teachers or a team to examine the student's Tier 2 progress monitoring data. Several methods may be used to determine whether a student is making adequate progress. Most involve meeting performance level or rate of growth criteria.

Performance level is an indication of a student's reading skills, usually denoted by a score on a given test or probe. It is represented on the vertical axis (or y-axis) on a graph of the student's scores.

Rate of growth indicates how much a student's reading skills are improving. This is represented by the slope on a graph of the student's scores.

Performance Level graph: This is a line plot graph showing a student's performance level. The x-axis is labeled "Weeks of Instruction." Weeks 0 through 22 are shown, with every two weeks labeled on the axis. The y-axis is labeled "Words Correct Per Minute." 0 to 30 correct words per minute are shown, with every five words correct per minute labeled on the axis. There is a red line plot graph stretching from Week 1 to Week 8. This period of time is labeled "Tier 1" at the top of the graph. The data line has eight plotted points at weeks 1 through 8. The points per week are as follows: 4, 9, 7, 9, 12, 11, 10, and 11 words correct per minute. The last three data points are circled in purple.

Rate of Growth graph: This is a line plot graph showing a student's rate of growth. The x-axis is labeled "Weeks of Instruction." Weeks 0 through 22 are shown, with every two weeks labeled on the axis. The y-axis is labeled "Words Correct Per Minute." 0 to 30 correct words per minute are shown, with every five words correct per minute labeled on the axis. There is a red line plot graph stretching from Week 1 to Week 8. This period of time is labeled "Tier 1" at the top of the graph. The data has eight plotted points at weeks 1 through 8. The points per week are as follows: 4, 9, 7, 9, 12, 11, 10, and 11 words correct per minute. The first data point and the last data point are circled in purple. The corresponding weeks with these two data points, Week 1 and Week 8, are also circled in purple on the x-axis.

In the dual discrepancy approach, teachers examine both performance level and rate of growth for the Tier 2 data. According to any of these methods, students' response to intervention is defined as:

Adequate progress: The student's scores are at or above the established criterion.

Inadequate progress: The student's scores fall below the criterion.

For Your Information

According to available research, the dual discrepancy approach appears to be the most effective method for monitoring the progress of English language learners. However, researchers remind us that the criteria used to assess performance level (i.e., benchmark) and rate of growth are determined by a norming sample in which these students are often not included.

If you do not already have a comprehensive understanding of data-based decision making in the RTI approach, we encourage you to examine the following IRIS Modules:
(Close this panel)
If the data indicate that the student is not making adequate progress in Tier 2, he or she should be considered for Tier 3, or special education, services. However, to qualify for special education services under current law, students must meet certain criteria: 1) a student must have a disability, and 2) that disability must significantly affect his or her educational performance. The formal process for determining whether a student is eligible for Tier 3 services consists of three basic steps:

Referral

Evaluation

Determination of eligibility for special education

Referral
Based on a student's progress in Tier 2, school personnel may refer a student for special education services. Once the referral is made, school personnel and parents should meet to review the student's progress (e.g., Tier 2 progress monitoring data, work samples) and to decide whether an evaluation for special education services (i.e., Tier 3 intervention) is warranted.
Evaluation
The purpose of the evaluation is to rule out other possible factors for the student's academic performance, and, in turn, to indicate whether the student does in fact have a learning disability (LD). Factors to rule out include:

The existence of other disabilities (e.g., intellectual and developmental disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment, emotional or behavioral disorder)

A lack of appropriate reading instruction

A low level of English proficiency

An environmental or cultural disadvantage

Low motivation

Situational trauma (e.g., the death of a parent)

Ruling these factors out will require school personnel to make use of multiple sources of information. Though they often begin by administering the assessments noted in the table below, the IEP team may request other assessments to gain additional information about a student.

Vision screening

Hearing screening

To eliminate vision or hearing deficits as causes of learning problems

Intelligence test (abbreviated version)

Adaptive behavior scales (if warranted by the intelligence test)

To eliminate intellectual and developmental disabilities as a cause of learning problems

Speech and language screening

To eliminate speech or language impairments as a cause of learning problems

Behavior checklists (parent and teacher)

To eliminate an emotional or behavioral disorder as a cause for academic failure

Because the student's progress monitoring data can serve as a measure of achievement, an achievement test is often not included in the evaluation. However, the specific measures required as part of this evaluation vary by state.
Sec. 300.304 Evaluation procedures.
(a) Notice. The public agency must provide notice to the parents of a child with a disability, in accordance with Sec. 300.503, that describes any evaluation procedures the agency proposes to conduct.
(b) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must-
(1) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining-
(i) Whether the child is a child with a disability under Sec. 300.8; and
(ii) The content of the child's IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);
(2) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
(3) Use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.
(c) Other evaluation procedures. Each public agency must ensure that-
(1) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part-
(i) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
(ii) Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer;
(iii) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;
(iv) Are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and
(v) Are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.
(2) Assessments and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient.
(3) Assessments are selected and administered so as best to ensure that if an assessment is administered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the assessment results accurately reflect the child's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (unless those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
(4) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;
(5) Assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one public agency to another public agency in the same school year are coordinated with those children's prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, consistent with Sec. 300.301(d)(2) and (e), to ensure prompt completion of full evaluations.
(6) In evaluating each child with a disability under Sec. Sec. 300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.
(7) Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(1)-(3), 1412(a)(6)(B))
Determination of Eligibility for Special Education
Once the evaluation process is complete, the IEP team and the parents meet to review the test results. If the team determines that the student meets the criteria established by the state for a learning disability, the student will receive the more intensive, individualized intervention provided in Tier 3. Before this intervention can begin, however, an individualized education program (IEP) must be developed to address the learning needs of the student.
Individualized education program
An individualized education program (IEP) is a working document that specifies individualized learning goals, in addition to any accommodations, modifications, and related services the child may need to attend school and to maximize learning.

For Your Information

The formal process for referring a student for an evaluation and determining whether the child meets the criteria for special education services in Tier 3 requires school personnel to communicate with parents in order to:

Request referral to evaluate the child for special education services (can be initiated by parent or school personnel)

Provide written prior notice of the action the school is taking or refusing to take (e.g., evaluating or determining that there is not enough evidence to proceed)

Inform parents of their procedural safeguards and their legal rights and protections under IDEA '04

Invite parents to participate in the IEP planning process

Laney is a student at Rosa Parks Elementary. When she doesn't respond adequately to Tier 2 intervention, her teacher refers her for a special education evaluation.

The IEP team, together with Laney's parents, reviews the results and rules out hearing and vision impairments, intellectual disabilities, and emotional or behavioral disorders as reasons for her continuing struggles with reading. In addition, the team rules out a lack of appropriate reading instruction, low level of English proficiency, environmental or cultural disadvantage, motivation, and situational trauma as potential factors. The IEP team reviews Laney's progress monitoring data along with the results of the evaluation and determines that Laney has a learning disability and therefore qualifies for special education services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IRIS | Page 4: Determining Which Students Will Receive Tier 3 Intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of the students who require Tier 3 intervention have difficulty decoding words, reading fluently, and comprehending what they have read. Additionally, they often lack: Phonological awareness and knowledge of the alphabetic principle Phonological awareness Phonological awareness is the recognition that spoken language can be broken into smaller components and the ability to manipulate these components.

# data[].attributes.body
This IRIS module describes the qualities of Tier 3 interventions. These qualities include: increased intensity, increased explicitness, high quality instruction, frequent progress monitoring, data based decision making, and low student-teacher ratio.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IRIS | Page 3: Qualities of Tier 3 Intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although most students respond to Tier 1 or Tier 2 instruction, a small percentage (i.e., 5%) will not and may require Tier 3 intervention (i.e., special education services). In a three-tiered model, a special education teacher provides the intervention, which is guided by data, individualized, and…

# data[].attributes.body
The article above provides detailed guidelines and suggestions for establishing a Tier 3 model and decision making process. They provide examples of questions that should be asked by team members working with students at the Tier 3 level. These questions include :who is experiencing the problem and what exactly is the problem, what types of intervention strategies can be used for this problem, and did the student's problem get solved because of the use of the intervention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Schools can be viewed as intervention systems focused on promoting outcomes (e.g., literacy, social-emotional competence, etc.) deemed important to society (Deno, 2002). This is a complex task considering the nature of learning and development and the growing diversity of problems and issues facing school-aged youth. Research on child development informs us that children learn and develop skills at different rates. Specifically, children enter the learning environment with different skill sets, and an individual child's Response to Intervention (RTI) is unique and dependent on biology, social learning history, and context. To reach desired outcomes in school, some students may require additional or unique instructional strategies or interventions beyond those typically available. Thus, for schools to meet the needs of all students it is important to establish a comprehensive continuum of multi-layered or multi-tiered systems of prevention/intervention services. This continuum should include intervention options of varying intensity that can be linked to the specific learning needs of students who are experiencing difficulties. To ensure that prevention and intervention strategies are provided in a timely manner and to students who need them, schools should establish a clear process for a) determining which students are experiencing difficulties, b) selecting intervention strategies or supports and matching these supports to students, and c) evaluating whether the intervention strategies are helpful to students.

One common multi-layered arrangement involves three tiers of prevention or intervention supports to students. At Tier 1 (i.e., primary prevention/intervention), universal (i.e., school-wide) prevention efforts are established to promote learning for all students, anticipating that most students (e.g., 80%) will respond to these strategies and will not require additional intervention. For example, a school considering Tier 1 activities might adopt a research-based reading curriculum and screen all students for reading problems three times per year to determine which students might need supports beyond the school-wide reading curriculum. At Tier 2 (secondary prevention or strategic intervention), students who are identified as being at-risk of experiencing problems receive supplemental or small-group interventions. For example, when school-wide screening reveals that some students (e.g., 15%) in Grade 3 are at risk of developing reading problems, the school might provide supplemental reading support through a classwide peer tutoring intervention. Similarly, when school-wide data indicate that higher rates of office discipline referrals are occurring on the playground, the school improvement team might look into interventions that promote appropriate playground play (e.g., Ervin, Schaughency, Matthews, Goodman, & McGlinchey, 2007). At Tier 3 (tertiary prevention), an additional layer of intensive supports is available to address the needs of a smaller percentage of students (e.g., 2%-7%) who are experiencing problems and are at risk of developing more severe problems. At Tier 3, the goal is remediation of existing problems and prevention of more severe problems or the development of secondary concerns as a result of persistent problems. For example, at Tier 3, a student whose reading performance falls significantly below that of his or her peers, despite intervention, might receive intensive reading support from the learning assistant four times per week with close monitoring of his or her progress.

The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of special considerations pertaining to the provision of Tier 3 prevention and intervention efforts. Specifically, this article describes a self-questioning process to guide decision making at Tier 3. For each step of the process, readers are referred to additional references and resources.

Establishing a Process to Guide Decision Making at Tier 3

As noted earlier, within a multi-tier RTI approach it is important to establish a process for a) determining which students are experiencing difficulties, b) selecting intervention strategies or supports and matching these supports to students, and c) evaluating whether the intervention strategies are helpful. At each tier along the continuum, the process may vary in its intensity, yet it will always follow a consistent series of questions or steps. Practitioners can guide their decision making by adhering to a self-questioning process wherein they ask themselves the following questions:

1. Who is experiencing a problem and what specifically is the problem?

2. What intervention strategies can be used to solve the problem or reduce its severity?

3. Did the problem (or problems) go away or decline in severity as a result of the intervention(s)?

This self-questioning process is familiar to most educators and is used formally or informally by many effective teachers as they proactively work to assess the progress of students in their classrooms. For example, teachers who are responsive to the individual needs of students in their classrooms regularly assess students' skills and responsiveness to instructional strategies, providing additional supports and remediation at a whole-class, small-group, or individual level as necessary.

In school-wide, multi-tier approaches to RTI, a similar, but often more formalized, process is applied at a whole-school, classroom, and individual student level. Across tiers, the nature of services and support provided are differentiated on the basis of the intensity of the problems and the magnitude of need. At Tier 3, efforts focus on the needs of individual students who are experiencing significant problems in academic, social, and/or behavioral domains. Thus, the process at this level is more intensive and individualized than it is at other levels. In the sections that follow, considerations during each step of a Tier 3 self-questioning process are discussed.

Step 1: Who is experiencing a problem and what, specifically, is the problem?

The first step in the process is to define the problem, and embedded within this step is noting who is experiencing the problem and what level of support (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) is warranted. When defining a problem, it is important to clearly describe what the problem "looks like" in objective, observable terms, so that all persons involved know they are talking about the same thing. Measurement of a problem should be direct and occur within the context (e.g., classroom setting or situation) in which the problem occurs. To quantify how much of a problem exists, the problem should be described in measurement terms (e.g., frequency, rate, duration, magnitude). Furthermore, to stay focused on working toward improving problem situations, it is helpful to describe problems as discrepancies between a student's actual or current performance (i.e., "what is") and desired or expected performance (i.e., "what should be"). Thus, in addition to measuring a student's actual performance, criteria regarding expected levels of performance need to be established. By quantifying problems as discrepancies, educators can use this information to determine the magnitude or severity of a problem. This information can be useful in formalizing goals (i.e., a reduction in the discrepancy) and in prioritizing problems within and across students.

To illustrate this process, consider reading as an example. One measure of "reading health" shown to be predictive of later reading fluency and comprehension is the number of words a student reads correctly per minute, or oral reading fluency (Hosp & Fuchs, 2005). The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; http://www.dibels.uoregon.edu) is a research-based, standardized, norm-referenced measure of pre-reading and reading skills that includes a measure of oral reading fluency for Grades 1 to 6 (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2002). The DIBELS measures were designed for use as screening and evaluation tools, and scores on the DIBELS can be used to place students in categories of reading risk. Prespecified, research-based goal rates have been established for the DIBELS and are available on the Web site just mentioned. These goal rates might be used as "expected performance" standards against which to compare actual student performance in an RTI model. Specifically, students who read at or above recommended (i.e., benchmark) rates are considered to be at low risk of reading problems. In contrast, if students perform below benchmark rates, they are considered to be either at "some risk" of developing reading problems or "at risk" of developing reading problems.

The DIBELS benchmark criteria suggest, for example, that a 3rd grade student is expected to read 77 or more words correctly per minute in the beginning (fall term) of 3rd grade, 92 or more words in the middle (winter term), and 110 or more at the end (spring term). Thus, a student who reads fewer words correctly per minute than the specified benchmark amount (i.e., 77 words in the fall of Grade 3) might be viewed as experiencing a reading problem and, depending on their scores, might be viewed as in need of strategic (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) reading intervention supports. To illustrate this more clearly, consider hypothetical data taken in the fall from all 3rd grade students at one elementary school. Imagine that all of the students in Grade 3 were screened for reading difficulties using the DIBELS. As with any screening device, the DIBELS is designed to be sensitive enough to identify students who may be at risk of experiencing reading problems. Thus, to determine who might be at risk of experiencing reading difficulties, the team of 3rd grade teachers would look to see which students scored below the expected goal rate of 77 words read correctly per minute. For example, let's assume that Ben read at a rate of 67 words correctly per minute, which means he read 10 fewer words correctly per minute than the desired rate (i.e., 77 - 67 = 10). Ella, who read 30 words correctly per minute, read 47 fewer words correctly per minute than the desired rate (i.e., 77 - 30 = 47). Both children are reading at rates less than the desired rate of 77 and may be in need of additional reading supports, but the quantified problem (i.e., discrepancy between actual and expected performance) is greater for Ella. Of course, this is not to suggest that a student should be placed in a category of Tier 2 or Tier 3 support on the basis of a single score. Instead, screening devices, like the DIBELS, which can be administered repeatedly and are time-efficient measures, are useful because they can help identify students who may be in need of additional intervention supports or further assessment to determine need for support. See Jenkins and Johnson article in section of this Web site on Universal Screening for more information. [NCLD add Link to article]

One important question that schools need to consider is whether a student should receive Tier 1, 2, or 3 services. Tier 3 services are designed to address the needs of students who are experiencing significant problems and/or are unresponsive to Tier 1 and Tier 2 efforts. Schools should establish guidelines for determining how students will enter into Tier 1, 2, or 3 levels of support. Although guidelines may vary from school to school, students in need of Tier 3 services should be able to access these services in one of two ways. First, students receiving Tier 1 or Tier 2 supports who are not making adequate progress and are unresponsive to the continuum of supports available at Tier 1 or Tier 2 might be moved into Tier 3 to receive more intensive intervention supports. Second, there should be a mechanism through which students who are experiencing very severe or significant academic, behavioral, or social-emotional problems can be triaged directly into Tier 3 to receive necessary intensive and individualized intervention supports. For some students, the second option is necessary to provide needed supports in a timely fashion rather than delaying access to these supports by making students wait to go through Tier 1 and Tier 2 intervention services. Thus, in contrast to a fixed multi-gating system wherein students would only be able to receive more intensive services (i.e., Tier 3) following some time period of less intensive (i.e., Tier 1 or 2) services, the RTI approach should allow some flexibility to serve students based on their level of need in a timely and efficient manner.

As educators establish a process for determining which students at their school should receive Tier 1, 2, or 3 services, they face challenges associated with selecting criteria for tiers (for discussion, see Kovaleski, 2007). Research-based criteria of risk, like those provided by the DIBELS, are also available when looking at office discipline referrals for behavioral issues (see School Wide Information System [SWIS; http://www.swis.org]), and these criteria can be useful to schools in determining whether students should receive Tier 1, 2, or 3 services (for an example, see Ervin, Schaughency, Goodman, McGlinchey, & Matthews, 2006). Unfortunately, research-based risk criteria are not always available for other important targets, meaning that educators need to consider how they will decide to match tiered services to student needs. When research-based risk criteria for expected levels of performance are unavailable, educators must select standards for comparison (e.g., professional experience, teacher expectations, parental expectations, developmental norms, medical standards, curriculum standards, national norms, local norms, and classroom peer performance), and this is not an easy task (see Kovaleski, 2007). Furthermore, even when research-based risk criteria are available, schools serving high numbers of students at risk for reading and/or behavioral problems may not have sufficient resources to provide Tier 3 interventions to all students who fall into risk categories. In one high needs school in Michigan, for example, school-wide screening data revealed that less than 40% of the students at the school met benchmark reading goal rates according to the DIBELS, meaning 60% of the student population was at risk for developing reading problems (Ervin et al., 2006). Given such high numbers of students in need of support, coupled with limited school resources and time available to provide intensive intervention, the school-based team at this school decided to implement an early reading intervention program in kindergarten and 1st grade rather than attempt to design individualized reading plans for each student at risk for developing reading problems (see Ervin et al., 2006; Ervin, Schaughency, Goodman, McGlinchey, & Matthews, 2007). Students who continued to experience reading difficulties despite the classwide interventions were referred to grade-level teams and considered for Tier 3 intervention supports. This example illustrates that as educators develop a process for determining which students should receive Tier 3 intervention services, they need to consider how they will best use the available time and resources to provide a continuum of interventions to support the diverse learning needs of students.

Step 2: What intervention strategies can be used to reduce the magnitude or severity of the problem?

When a student has been identified as being in need of Tier 3 intervention supports, the next step in the self-questioning process is the selection and implementation of appropriate intervention supports. One option in this step is to move directly into intervention by selecting an evidence-based intervention strategy that has a standard protocol for implementation. There are many intervention strategies from which to choose. For example, several Web sites provide teacher-friendly intervention resources (e.g., http://www.interventioncentral.com; http://www.free-reading.net; http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/).

A second option at this stage is to collect more information before moving to intervention. To assist in the development and selection of an intervention for a specific problem, it may be important to conduct an analysis of the problem's context and function. To do so, we must ask what factors are contributing to the problem and in what ways can we alter those factors to promote learning and reduce the magnitude or severity of the problem. One end goal of this stage in the process is to "diagnose the conditions under which students' learning is enabled" (Tilly, 2002, p. 29). This goal is accomplished by gathering information (e.g., direct observation, interviews, rating scales, curriculum-based measures of academic skills, review of records) from a number of sources (e.g., the student, teacher, parent, peers, administrator) to answer questions helpful in furthering our understanding of why (i.e., under what conditions) the problem is occurring. Specifically, we want to know where, when, with whom, and during what activities the problem is likely or unlikely to occur.

Although many questions can be asked at this stage, it is important to stay focused on identifying the factors that we can change (i.e., instructional strategies, curriculum materials) in attempting to mitigate the problem situation. For example, when a child's classroom performance is below our expectations, we might ask whether the problem is a skill (i.e., can't do) or a performance (i.e., won't do) problem (for more information on this process, see Daly Chafouleas, & Skinner, 2005; Daly, Martens, Witt, & Dool, 1997; Witt, Daly, & Noell, 2000). Another important, and related, question to ask concerning learning problems is whether the alignment between the student's skill level, the curriculum materials, and instructional strategies is appropriate (Howell & Nolet, 2000). When the problem involves performance that falls below what is expected, it is important to ask the following types of questions about whether this is because the student a) does not want to perform the task or activity, b) would rather be doing something else, c) gets something (e.g., attention, access to a preferred activity) by not doing the task, d) does not have the prerequisite skills to perform the task, e) is given work that is too difficult or presented in a manner that the student hasn't seen before, or f) has been given insufficient time to practice the skill to fluency.

In answering the above questions, there is a direct link between our questioning and the development of a solution. For example, if the information we collect suggests that the student has the prerequisite skills needed to decode connected text but does so slowly, one hypothesis we might have is that perhaps the student has not had sufficient time to practice reading to develop fluency. An appropriate intervention for this student might focus on building reading fluency through an intervention that involves increased reading practice, such as repeated reading (see Daly et al., 2005, for a description of repeated reading). Alternatively, if we suspect that a student's reading problem is related to not having enough assistance to acquire the skill and/or a deficit in pre-reading skills (e.g., problems with phonemic awareness), our hypothesized intervention strategy would might focus on direct skill development of prerequisite skills, with prompting and corrective feedback. In each example, the reading problem was related to a skill issue, and the solutions were linked to the type of skill problem (e.g., acquisition, fluency).

If the information we gather suggests that the reading problem is not a skill problem, but rather a performance (i.e., won't do) issue, then the intervention should focus on addressing the function (e.g., escape task) of the behavior. Much has been written about linking assessment to intervention through functional behavioral assessment, and when problems are performance issues, interventions can address behavior function in several ways. When a student's behavior is maintained by escape from a task, for example, the intervention might reduce the student's motivation to escape the task by making the task less aversive (e.g., adjusting the choice of materials to increase interest), teach the student a more appropriate way to communicate that the task is aversive (requesting a brief break), or allowing escape from the task following performance of the task for a prespecified time period.

Regardless of whether educators decide to move directly to intervention or to collect more information to analyze the problem, the focus of this step in the self-questioning process is on selecting a solution (intervention strategy) that reduces the magnitude or severity of the problem (i.e., reduces the discrepancy between the student's current and expected performance). Interventions should be selected on the basis of their functional relevance to the problem (i.e., match to why the problem is occurring), contextual fit (i.e., match to the setting and situation in which the problem occurs), and likelihood of success (i.e., demonstrated success within the research literature). Tier 3 interventions are designed to address significant problems for which students are in need of intensive interventions. As a result, Tier 3 interventions require careful planning. Specifically, an intervention plan should describe the following:

1. What the intervention will look like (i.e., its steps or procedures)

2. What materials and/or resources are needed and whether these are available within existing resources

3. Roles and responsibilities with respect to intervention implementation (i.e., who will be responsible for running the intervention, preparing materials, etc.)

4. The intervention schedule (i.e., how often, for how long, and at what times in the day?) and context (i.e., where, and with whom?)

5. How the intervention and its outcomes will be monitored (i.e., what measures, by whom, and on what schedule?) and analyzed (i.e., compared to what criterion?).

In addition, an intervention plan should specify timelines for implementing objectives and for achieving desired goals. The end goal of this stage of the process is a clearly delineated intervention plan. (For examples of evidence-based intervention strategies, see the What Works Clearinghouse at http://www.whatworks.ed.gov, a resource developed by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.)

Step 3: Did the student's problem get resolved as a result of the intervention?

An individual's RTI can only be known following actual implementation of an intervention and careful (i.e., reliable and valid), repeated measurement of his or her behavior over time. Although a thorough description and analysis of the problem, why it is occurring, and what interventions are likely to be effective is important to the self-questioning process at Tier 3, the process is incomplete until practitioners ask if the student's problem was resolved as a result of the intervention. The best way to determine whether a student is making progress toward the desired goals in RTI is to collect ongoing information regarding the integrity with which the intervention was implemented and, relative to intervention implementation, the discrepancy between desired and actual performance. The intervention process does not end until the problem (i.e., discrepancy between what is and what should be) is resolved. Thus, continuous monitoring and evaluation are essential parts of an effective RTI process. Specifically, information should be collected on targeted student outcomes (i.e., measurement of change in behavior relative to desired goals), proper implementation of the intervention (i.e., measure whether the intervention is implemented as planned), and social validity (practicality and acceptability of the intervention and outcome). When data are reviewed and analyzed, a decision should be made regarding whether the intervention plan should be revised or goals adjusted. Single-subject design methods are key to determining a student's RTI (for further information, see Olson, Daly, Andersen, Turner, & LeClair, 2007).

REFERENCES

Daly, E. J., Chafouleas, S. M., & Skinner, C. H. (2005). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: Guildford Press.

Daly, E. J., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.

Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem-solving as "best practice." In A Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology IV, Volume 1 (pp. 37-55). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Goodman, S. D., McGlinchey, M. T., & Matthews, A. (2006). Moving research and practice agendas to address reading and behavior schoolwide. School Psychology Review, 35, 198-223.

Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Goodman, S. D., McGlinchey, M. T., & Matthews, A. (2007). Moving from a model demonstration project to a statewide initiative in Michigan: Lessons learned from merging research-practice agendas to address reading and behavior. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 354-377). New York: Springer.

Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Matthews, A., Goodman, S. D., & McGlinchey, M. T. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention of behavior difficulties: Developing a data-informed problem-solving model to guide decision making at a schoolwide level. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 7-18.

Good, R. H. III, Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology IV, Volume 1 (pp. 699- 720). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade? School Psychology Review, 34(1), 9-26.

Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Potential pitfalls of response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 80-92). New York: Springer.

Olson, S. C., Daly, E. J., Andersen, M., Turner, A., & LeClair, C. (2007). Assessing student response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 117-129). New York: Springer.

Tilly, D. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving enterprise. In A Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 21-36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Witt, J. C., Daly, E. M., & Noell, G. (2000). Functional assessments: A step by step guide to solving academic and behavior problems. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Back To Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Considering Tier 3 Within a Response-to-Intervention Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools can be viewed as intervention systems focused on promoting outcomes (e.g., literacy, social-emotional competence, etc.) deemed important to society (Deno, 2002). This is a complex task considering the nature of learning and development and the growing diversity of problems and issues facing school-aged youth.

# data[].attributes.body
This video provides an explanation on MTSS, the purpose and goal of Tier 2 interventions, who Tier 2 benefits, and then describes 10 interventions that can be used at this level.

# data[].attributes.body
This powerpoint provides MANY examples of data collection sheets and examples of how these collection sheets are actually used within the classroom. Two examples of the types of data collection used are direct observation and direct behavior ratings.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides Tier 2 interventions specifically for reading groups with students struggling with core reading instruction for comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, or vocabulary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best Practice for RTI: Intensive, Systematic Instruction for Some Students (Tier 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The What Works Clearninghouse reviewed the research available about using Response To Intervention to help primary grade students overcome reading struggles. WWC's recommendation for tier 2 of RTI is to provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills in small groups to students.

# data[].attributes.body
This article breaks down the differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2, provides best practices, and how to best implement Tier 2 interventions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About two years ago, I was a district administrator for school climate improvement. In this role, I was asked to support a group of administrators that were handling intense behaviors on their campus. The campus had maxed out its intensive support resources, and determined that they had no other option than to create a new tier of support-what they referred to as "Tier 4."

I have noticed this trend quite often. I hear different variations of this new level of need: "Tier 4," "deep red," or even "too many red students."

What does this mean?

A Multi-Tiered System of Supports is based on the three-tiered public health model. This means that we must identify the root cause(s) within our current system and identify why it's not serving our student population. By creating an additional tier, we ignore a problem that is perforating our entire system.

There is no Tier 4. However, there is a Tier 2. And this tier is often overlooked in how powerful of an intervention tool it can be.

I also found that my MTSS teams were extreme advocates for student support. They could create an individualized, intensive for a student. We allocated individual staff and connected resources at this level with ease. But where does this leave Tier 2? What I find are two scenarios.

The first scenario is a misunderstanding between Tier 1 support and Tier 2 intervention. The second scenario is directly related to confusion between Tier 1 and Tier 2, leaving schools to allocate too many resources to provide an over-abundance of students with intensive, individualized instruction-having nowhere else to turn. Unfortunately, because Tier 2 is so hard to define in practice, it sometimes becomes ineffective or even nonexistent.

Fortunately, I know that educators try to do what is best for their students when given the proper information and tools. I believe that a lack of appropriate Tier 2 support exists because of two important truths.

My goal is to share how you can build a foundation for Tier 2 instruction and support, create structures that allow the opportunity for Tier 2 instruction and support to exist, and make Tier 2 fit within your school, district, and state constraints.

Moreover, we'll take a peek at best practices for grouping, providing Tier 2 instruction and intervention for reading, math, and social-emotional learning.

Before we dig into Tier 2, let's make sure we understand what each of the tiers within a multi-tiered framework means.

The three tiers are also known as levels of support or instruction and intervention that educators provide to students. There are various resources, strategies, and tools within each level that support our students' various needs.

The Differentiation Deal

Because Tier 1 instruction provides the foundation for Tier 2 instruction and intervention, it can sometimes be tricky to identify when you have moved from instruction to intervention. The following chart is a quick check reference for determining if you're differentiating or providing Tier 2 instruction and intervention.

Standards-driven, grade level expectations

Designed for ALL students

Accessible for ALL students

Use universal screener data to promote differentiation

High-quality

Monitoring progress with screeners and curriculum embedded assessments

Provided by the general education teacher

Linked to best practices for designing differentiated lessons

Targeted skills-driven

Designed for a group of students with the same skill deficit

Explicit instruction and feedback

Occur in addition to a strong Tier 1

Delivered to students with an identified need (less than 15-20%)

Identified through universal screeners, diagnostics, and monitoring progress

Evidence or research-based

Progress monitoring assessment and tools matched to skill needs

Provided by the general education teacher or by another trained instructor, within or outside the general education classroom.

Linked to Tier 2 Support Plans which include SMART goals, progress monitoring tools, and intervention selection and dosage

A Basic Foundation for Tier 2 Instruction and Intervention

Tier 2 instruction and interventions are seamlessly layered onto Tier 1 Differentiated Core Instruction.

Tier 2 instruction and interventions build upon a strong Tier 1 instruction foundation. A strong Tier 1 foundation means that about 15% of our total population may need additional support to meet grade-level standards.

Like Tier 1 Instruction, Tier 2 instruction and interventions should be high-quality and evidence or research-based. Tier 2 instruction and interventions are supplemental to the core instruction, meaning that as identified students begin to receive Tier 2 instruction and interventions, they continue accessing their high-quality, Tier 1 instruction. When we consider the MTSS pyramid, we look at it as layers upon layers-instead of isolated places of support.

Tier 2 instruction and interventions rely on an analysis of screening data to identify at-risk students and determine the health of the Tier 1 Differentiated Core.

Another foundational component of Tier 2 instruction and intervention is the use of universal screening data. Universal screening data can serve two essential purposes:

1. Identify the effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction.

2. Identify students who need additional support.

That second purpose is the foundation of our discussion. Through a thorough analysis of student data, collaboration teams can group students with similar needs or skill deficits. Through this process, interventions can occur in group support plans-providing more targeted instruction and intervention.

Important note: If you notice that more than 15% of your population demonstrates a need for Tier 2 targeted instruction and intervention, your team of professionals should examine your Tier 1 instructional practice, materials, and environments to ensure it is differentiated to meet current student needs.

A Quick Review of MTSS Supports, Interventions, and Accommodations

Best Practices for Tier 2 Instruction and Intervention

While Tier 2 begins with a strong Tier 1 foundation, additional best practices for Tier 2 instruction and intervention are needed.

Tier 2 instruction and interventions provide targeted support for small groups of students who are unsuccessful with Tier 1 instruction alone.

A key difference between Tier 1 instruction and Tier 2 intervention is the focus on targeted skills.

Tier 1 instruction is standards-driven, focusing on students' broad skills and generalizing to a learning target.

In contrast, Tier 2 interventions target a specific skill deficit that has been identified through assessment. Instruction and intervention targets this specific skill, and educators monitor growth on that specific skill with a normed progress monitoring tool.

In a group setting, a team can look at the group as a whole to determine students with similar skill needs to create intervention groups. It is important to remember that progress monitoring tools are essential components of these plans. These tools ensure that students respond to group intervention plans and provide insight into further action.

Tier 2 instruction and interventions should be readily accessible to support students as they demonstrate need.

Most research indicates that once a student demonstrates a need for targeted instruction or intervention, they should have access to it within 72 hours.

This means that our Tier 2 supports should be pre-designed, scheduled, and require low effort for teachers or interventionists to support. Here are some steps to make this actionable within a school setting:

Across campus, plan to implement three to four academic and three to four SEL/behavioral Tier 2 interventions with strong evidence that are readily accessible.

Allocate resources (like time, staff, and materials) to targeted interventions at the beginning of the year so there are no surprises.

Ensure that teams know how and when to access or apply targeted supports.

Skip adding interventions, programs, or tools mid-year unless there is a data-driven need. Teams can become confused and unsure of what to do next. If Tier 2 is too challenging to access, teachers may skip that step altogether.

By following these steps, teams will not have to spend hours thinking about what Tier 2 intervention will work best, and they will not have to navigate how to implement it. This streamlined process aids in creating an environment where Tier 2 is a viable option.

Tier 2 instruction and interventions include systematic and explicit instruction and interaction between the educator and the student.

Tier 2 instruction and intervention should be closely linked to Tier 1 instruction though there are some important differences. Explicit instruction is a way of teaching where the teacher provides overt instruction on the skill and allows the student to practice with scaffolds until they achieve mastery systematically.

We support the learner by giving clear directions and expectations, using clear and direct language and vocabulary, and monitoring the student's progress , positively providing immediate, specific corrective feedback.

Luckily, many databases, such as What Works Clearinghouse , curate interventions. These databases take the guesswork out of identifying quality interventions by evaluating the trustworthiness and validity of the research behind the interventions. The higher the evidence rating, the more likely the intervention includes systematic, explicit instruction with continuous opportunities for positive corrective feedback.

In addition to these best practices in explicit instruction, students receiving behavioral interventions benefit from pre-corrections; or providing reminders before the student engages in non-preferred tasks to support their application of the preferred response.

➡️ To learn more about supporting students in need of tier 2 support, check out this on-demand webinar

Tier 2 instruction and interventions must be frequently progress monitored through the use of progress monitoring tools.

Students identified as needing interventions should be provided with frequent opportunities to demonstrate progress toward acquiring a particular skill.

Progress monitoring tools provide insight into how well an intervention is supporting a student's growth toward their skill-based goal. Progress monitoring assessments and tools are

These assessments/tools are also often normed, demonstrating how same-age peers perform consistently over time. They are given to students receiving intervention support and are administered at a consistent cadence based on need and as written in the student's plan.

A quick note on Progress Monitoring Assessments and Curriculum-Embedded Assessments...

Before we go any further, I want to clarify a common misconception. Progress monitoring assessments are not to be confused with curriculum embedded assessments.

We use summative and formative assessments ongoing throughout our instruction to gather data on student performance related to a particular learning outcome. These assessments are known as curriculum-embedded assessments. Curriculum-embedded assessments may be a part of your intervention tool or program. Don't confuse these embedded assessments with progress monitoring assessments.

Progress monitoring assessments measure specific skill growth. These tools effectively help us determine if the intervention we have selected is appropriately aligned to the student's skill deficit and if a plan is working. It helps teams have the data to decide on continuing or discontinuing interventions.

➡️ Check out this MTSS Intervention Process Flowchart

Structuring Your MTSS To Support Tier 2 With Fidelity

Tier 2 is challenging and a common trend is skipping it altogether. So how can you ensure your Tier 2 instruction and intervention is available to all staff and any student that needs it?

To ensure we create a system that includes strong Tier 2 instruction and intervention support, we must think about how the resources and people will flow around the building to ensure these interventions are easily and quickly accessible.

Complete a Resource Audit

Resource auditing (or mapping) is not a new technique. Resource mapping helps us align our resources with student needs more efficiently. It's also a clear visual representation of how your MTSS supports learners at various levels.

Round up your resources and lay them out (yep, all of them!) Take time to identify what needs the resource meets and when it should be used. For example, check out the table below for a sample of this resourcing:

Good news: you can use the Branching Minds Resource Audit Worksheet to help your team!

Determine Your Wants and Needs for Your Student Population

Write down your wants for your students and your school. Think about your vision and your beliefs.

Then, work with a team of stakeholders and analyze your data to determine your needs. Consider the following in this list:

Demographics

Population

Geographic location

Access to resources outside of school

Early warning indicators (EWI)

Screening data

Progress monitoring assessment data

Any other pertinent data

Rather than think about individual or small group student needs, think about your data from a larger perspective; that of your allocation of resources, time, and staff.

Reduce, Repurpose, Recycle Your Resources

Once you have completed your audit and determined your wants and needs, you can begin to reduce, repurpose, and recycle (toss!) resources to better align them based on your current constraints and your student and teacher strengths.

narrow and streamline your resources. More does not always mean better! Identify the instructional resources that best match your campus and eliminate the rest. Focus on implementing a few interventions at Tier 2 WELL!

I have worked on many master schedules and position control. Para-professionals and classroom aides are often scheduled along with the same guidelines as a teacher from bell to bell. Be creative. Repurpose staff to provide intervention minutes during transitions and other moments on campus.

Recycle: Is your master schedule stuck in the 90s with RTI? Do you plan for Tier 2 intervention when you design your master schedule, or do you plan for it the first day the need arises? The most dangerous statement I hear is, "that's the way we've always done it!" It's okay to toss programs, resources, schedules, and data sources that aren't serving you or your students.

Once you create an appropriate schedule and align staff, time, and instructional resources, planning to implement Tier 2 interventions with fidelity will be a breeze. All that's left is progress monitoring to ensure your interventions meet your student's needs.

Designing Your MTSS Practice With Tier 2 Data in Mind

Data routines help us identify how well our interventions are working and to what extent we are implementing our plans with fidelity. By answering a few simple questions at our grade level PLC meetings or our school-wide meetings, we can identify if our Tier 2 targeted interventions support identified students in meeting their goals with independence.

Have we identified who needs additional targeted skill support?

Have we grouped students by similar skills or functions?

Are we implementing the plan as it was designed?

What are the progress monitoring data saying about the intervention and skill gap?

As educators, we engage in data routines ongoing throughout the year. But what do we do at the close of the year? Beyond ensuring that students continue to have access to appropriate support over the summer, what can we do with the end-of-year data, especially when considering Tier 2?

Plan for a comprehensive articulation of the student's Tier 2 plans to the next grade level.

Regroup with your MTSS School-Level team and review universal screening data to see how students moved along the tier levels. As students receive Tier 2 interventions, their needs should decrease. Check to see how many of your students that received Tier 2 interventions saw a positive change in their screening scores.

Identify trends from particular interventions that worked for your campus' needs. Perhaps a particular intervention or staff member had more impact than others. Find out why! And extend that work within your master MTSS plan for the following year!

Tried and True Tier 2: Experience From the Field

On a personal note, I have to say Tier 2 has always been my sweet spot. I love to get to know students on a deeper level, and instructing small groups since I have left my classroom has always been an outlet for me.

As I support schools in their MTSS implementation, I love watching teachers and teams smile when they begin to see the bigger picture for Tier 2 through a systems vantage point instead of siloed in their classroom.

The place between Differentiated Tier 1 and Intensive Tier 3 can be a turning point for so many of our students when implemented with fidelity. It's never too late or too early to start planning a systems-level review of your Tier 2 practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need To Know About Utilizing Tier 2 in MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tier 2 instruction and interventions should be high-quality, evidence or research-based, and supplemental to core instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes into detail explaining who receives Tier 1 support and how. Additionally, the article lists different questions that need to be asked at the Tier 1 level and some of the decisions that must be made in regard to screening and effective core instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In addition to student performance data, teams should familiarize their members with guidelines, indicators, flow charts, and checklists to improve the functioning of the MTSS process. Checklists can be particularly helpful. They are used in a variety of professions, such as aviation and medicine, because they minimize human error by guiding the user through the many steps and activities involved in complex work (Gawande, 2010). Checklists should identify critical elements of the work and give assurance that the system is working effectively. But at the same time, checklists should not be overly detailed. Having to review too much information can shift the focus from the system to the checklist, which can overwhelm and paralyze of the team, causing them to lose momentum.All of the checklists listed above are available on Within a school district, assume there are two buildings (School A and School B) with similar student populations, staff, resources, and an identical reading curriculum. In the spring, School A has 91% of the 2A careful analysis of time, materials, and delivery of core instruction is an essential piece of knowing which components of the Tier 1 system are working well and which items need to be improved. AIMSweb

Additional Articles

Additional Resources

Each day, hundreds of decisions are made within schools: What counts as a passing grade? Who needs more support? What kind of support is needed and how will it be delivered?

Most decisions within the framework of multi-tier system of supports (MTSS) are made by teams-building leadership teams, student support teams, or grade-level teams. These teams may or may not use a deliberate decision-making process driven by data, but even if they do, a variety of factors, such as lack of consensus, the restrictions of the building schedule, the skills of available interventionists, and the amount of resources available to meet student needs can distract the team from its task. That can be a problem when the success of MTSS implementation depends upon making good decisions.

This first in a two-part series of articles addresses the complexity of MTSS decision making and identifies critical decision points within Tier 1 (universal or core instruction for all students) at the building level. The building level refers to the school unit that is implementing MTSS (e.g. an elementary or middle school), as opposed to the larger district unit. The second article is about Tier 2 (secondary prevention) intervention selection, management, and evaluation. Both articles provide tools that will have a positive impact on student outcomes by assisting teams in sharpening the precision of their decision making and describing typical barriers that teams may expect to encounter in implementing MTSS.

Unpacking the Complexity of MTSS Decision Making

Successful MTSS implementation is a highly complex process that involves the following tasks:

Gathering accurate and reliable data

Correctly interpreting and validating data

Using data to make meaningful instructional changes for students

Establishing and managing increasingly intensive tiers of support

Evaluating the process at all tiers to ensure the system is working

MTSS decisions are made using a team based process. For example, the steps in the process described above should be coordinated through an MTSS building leadership team. The MTSS building leadership team is responsible for coordinating and communicating all MTSS implementation efforts for the building. The MTSS building leadership team uses a problem-solving process at both the system and student levels. For example, at the system level, the team might ask, is the core instruction effective? At the student level, the team would ask which students need additional support? Teams look at both system-and student-level problems by asking 1) What is the problem? 2) Why is the problem occurring? 3) What should we do about the problem? and 4) Did our solution work?
Accurate and timely data are also crucial to effective problem solving. MTSS is a framework, not a rigid filter, so teams may make decisions based on student performance data that has established benchmarks or effectiveness based on empirical studies, especially in the areas of screening, progress monitoring, and intervention effectiveness.

Checklist Title Author(s)Purpose

Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Program, Revised (PET-R)
Kame'enui, & Simmons (2000)

Provides checklist and rating system for seven critical elements of an elementary, schoolwide reading program

Benchmark for Advanced Tiers (BAT)
Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, et al. (2009)

Provides questions and scoring rubric for key features of a schoolwide, behavior support system (K-12)

Benchmark of Quality (BoQ)
Kincaid, D., Childs, K., & George, H. (March, 2010)

Provides a set of questions linked to 10 critical elements within schoolwide PBIS. Assists teams in identifying strengths and needs for action planning.

Table 1: Checklists that Support Implementation of a Multi-tier System of Supports

Table 1 provides a list of checklists that support MTSS implementation in the areas of reading and behavior:

Tier 1 Critical MTSS Decisions

Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) website; see also PBIS Assessments.
Who needs more support?

MTSS decisions at the Tier 1 building level are focused on balancing the needs of the entire student population and the resources available to the building. Critical areas for teams to examine include identification of student needs and the effectiveness of the core instruction or the instruction that all students receive every day. One guideline for MTSS implementation is having approximately 80% of the students reach the benchmark criteria established by the screening tool. If the percentage is significantly lower than 80%, buildings should intensify their focus on improving Tier 1 instruction for two reasons: 1) buildings do not have the resources to intervene with a large percentage of students and 2) you cannot "intervene" your way out of core instruction that is not effective. Given these limitations, it is critical for teams to choose reliable and valid criteria for screening. Some buildings may base their screening measures on benchmark criteria established by a curriculum-based measurement screening tool (for example, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) or AIMSweb); others may choose a norm-referenced criteria (for example, their lowest 15%); still others may use a combination of both. The challenge is to find the right students and match them to right interventions as early as possible.
Within screening, there are additional decision points beyond the identification of a score that will identify a level of risk for a student. Because screening data is a critical function within MTSS, the data must be accurate. The following fidelity checks for each period of screening are an important part of systematically checking for human errors in collecting screening data:

Are assessors given a checklist of standard administration and scoring rules?

Are the checklist administration and scoring rules reviewed with the team before each screening period? Is the data entry process checked for clerical errors?

Do the assessors have adequate training and coaching?

Does the building have an efficient schedule to collect screening data in a timely manner?

Finally, if screening is working properly, it can assist schools in deciding 1) if they are getting better over time and 2) what changes they need to make to the core curriculum. Graphs that show a visual picture of student growth are extremely helpful in making these decisions:

Figure 1: DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Data

Is the core instruction working?

To avoid being overwhelmed, School B can prioritize Tier 1 actions by critically and honestly completing the PET-R (Simmons & Kame'emui, 2000). The PET-R has seven sections (with five to ten items per section) that examine the following areas:

1. Goals, Objectives, Priorities

2. Assessment

3. Instructional Program and Materials

4. Instructional Time

5. Differentiated Instruction/Grouping/Scheduling

6. Administrative/Organization/Communication

7. Professional Development

Buildings complete the PET-R once a year with a 4- to 6-person leadership team, preferably with balanced representation from teachers, coaches or itinerant staff, and administration. Teams read the items and rank how MTSS for reading in their building is functioning according to a scale: 0 (not in place), 1 (partially in place), or 2 (in place). An accompanying document, called the PET-A, provides examples and ideas for comparison. For example, if there is one area of the PET-R that the team ranks particularly low, one recommendation is to have a larger representation of staff (for example, all staff teaching one grade level or all lower elementary staff) complete the items within that section. nd grade at their screening benchmark goal while School B has 36%. State test scores between the two buildings show a similar gap. Why? One hypothesis is that something within Tier 1 of MTSS is not working within School B and deep analysis is needed at this level before focusing on the individual student issues.
In our example, School B rated their schoolwide reading system a total score of 56% on the PET-R, while School A gave themselves 96%. School B's lowest area was Instructional Time with a subscore of 42%. According to these scores, School B has a critical area to prioritize: How are we using our instructional time? How much is allocated? How much do we actually use? How long are students engaged? How much time are students given to respond and receive feedback?
An additional tool for Tier 1 analysis is to inventory practices by surveying teachers on the following questions and having them provide a scope and sequence of their day-to-day instruction in a subject area.

What instructional routines are used? Are the routines consistent from classroom to classroom, general education to special education?

Is there evidence of scaffolding and explicit instruction, especially when students are learning something new?

Is there evidence of distributed practice of critical skills?

Is cumulative review built in on a systematic basis?

How much time is allocated? How is that time used (for example, whole group instruction, small group instruction, or independent practice)?

Does the pace of the instruction match student needs?

Do students have multiple opportunities for response and feedback? Are students actively engaged (that is, are they saying, writing, and doing)?

Troubleshooting Guide for MTSS Decisions

Plan for Success

References

Back To Top

An additional tool that may assist MTSS leadership teams in sharpening their decision-making process is the Troubleshooting Guide for MTSS Decisions: Building Level. This guide was designed to provide ideas, resources, and additional tools for critical decision points within MTSS, such as screening, instruction, supplemental intervention, evaluation, and implementation.

Successful MTSS implementation is highly complex and relies upon accurate decisions. Good decisions are accomplished when teams have accurate and timely data, not only for student outcomes, but also for critical components of MTSS such as screening, core instruction, intervention, progress monitoring and evaluation. Effective MTSS teams collect and analyze systems data just as systematically as they collect and review student data. Only when we follow these practices can we ensure that MTSS is carefully planned and implemented, efficient, and effective for our students.
http://www.aimsweb.com/

Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, et al. (2009) Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT).Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida.

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS®) http://dibels.org/

Gawande, A. (2010). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Kincaid, D., Childs, K., & George, H. (March, 2010)

Schoolwide Benchmarks of Quality (Revised). Unpublished instrument. USF, Tampa, Florida

Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2003). Planning and evaluation tool for effective schoolwide reading programs, revised. Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, College of Education, University of Oregon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's Your Plan? Accurate Decision Making within a Multi-Tier System of Supports: Critical Areas in Tier 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What's Your Plan? Accurate Decision Making within a Multi-Tier System of Supports: Critical Areas in Tier 1 addresses the complexity of MTSS decision-making, identifies critical decision points within Tier 1 at the building level, and provides practical tips and useful tools to improve decision-making throughout the implementation process.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides teachers with many strategies that can be used with the whole group to provide students with Tier 1 interventions. Some of these interventions include: modeling, inquiry-based instruction, active learning, metacognition, project based learning, visual learning, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Heather Gasvoda | K-12 Content Marketing Manager

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Classroom-Ready, Effective Tier 1 Instructional Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore 12 essential tier 1 instructional strategies from modeling to collaborative learning PBL and more to support all students in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
This IRIS module discusses the importance of using frequent Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs) for progress monitoring. This allows teachers to see which students are making sufficient progress and which students would benefit from Tier 2 interventions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Page 4: Tier 1 Components

Broadly speaking, all students receive Tier 1 services, regardless of their ability levels. As a result, many RTI practitioners consider universal screening a component of Tier 1 rather than a separate component. In this module, universal screening and Tier 1 have been treated separately simply to highlight the differences in the assessment process for these two RTI components.

During Tier 1 instruction, all students receive high-quality instruction in the general education classroom. Additionally, the students identified as struggling readers during the universal screening receive frequent monitoring of their performance.

High-Quality Instruction

High-quality instruction is effective instruction provided to all students in the general education setting using research-validated practices. Depending on the available resources and their students' needs, teachers may choose to provide adaptations for the identified students as part of high-quality instruction. These adaptations may include scaffolding and reteaching content.
effective instruction
The use of research-based instruction in the classroom.
research-validated practice
A strategy or practice that has been proven to work through experimental research studies or large-scale research field studies. Referred to in a variety of ways, such as scientifically based practices and evidence-based instruction

For more information on reading instruction in the RTI approach, view the IRIS Module:

Frequent Progress Monitoring

In conjunction with providing high-quality instruction, the teacher will need to employ frequent progress monitoring of those students identified through the universal screening as struggling. Progress monitoring is 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.

More specifically, a form of progress monitoring known as curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is used in the RTI approach. Implementing CBM allows teachers to track students' academic progress across the school year. It is crucial to understand that Tier 1 data may be used for two distinctly different purposes:

If the teacher chooses to collect CBM data for the entire class, the data can be used to inform classroom instruction.

For struggling readers, the data are used to make individual RTI tier placement decisions.

CBM is useful in making tier decisions for struggling students and in informing classroom instruction for all students for the following reasons:

Each test (probe) includes items representing the skills that students are expected to master by the end of the year.

Probes, administration, and scoring are standardized to produce reliable and valid scores.

Graphs of each student's scores provide a clear visual representation of how students are progressing academically.

It is important to note that when all students are monitored, assessment results can be used not only to evaluate students' progress but also to determine whether the class as a whole is receiving high-quality instruction.

Research Shows

Students of teachers who use CBM achieve higher grades than students whose teachers do not use CBM.
(Fuchs, Butterworth, & Fuchs, 1989)

Students are more aware of their performance and view themselves as more responsible for their learning when they use CBM and graph their own data.
(Davis, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Whinnery, 1995)

We strongly encourage the reader to view the following IRIS Module to learn more about how to implement CBM and how to use the data to guide instruction.

Selecting a Measure

Several types of CBM measures, many of which are commercially available, can be used to track the performance of students in Tier 1. Click here to view a list of available measures.

In all probability, the district or state-rather than individual teachers-will determine which actual measure is used. Most of these CBM reading measures require a student to identify sounds, read a list of words, or read a passage aloud for one minute. The number of correct sounds or words is recorded as the student's score. Available CBM measures differ slightly in content, in the skills assessed, and in the benchmarks used to indicate satisfactory performance. Some sources offer non-English language versions for linguistically diverse students, and large-print versions are also available for students with visual disabilities.

View the video below for a demonstration of how to administer a CBM probe. Pay attention to how José pronounces his words and how the teacher scores his performance. As the movie illustrates, José's word pronunciation reflects his Mexican-American heritage (time: 2:07).

Transcript: How Will Teachers Initially Identify Struggling Readers?

Ms. Begay: Hi, José. When I say "go," I want you to read these words as quickly and correctly as you can. Start here and go down the page. If you don't know a word, skip it and try the next word. Keep reading until I say "stop." Do you have any questions?

José: No.

Ms. Begay: Go.

José: Reads the word list in the movie.

Ms. Begay: Stop.

Narrator: As José reads, Ms. Begay marks a "1" for words he reads correctly and a "0" for words he reads incorrectly. When the one-minute time limit is up, Ms. Begay circles the last word read by José. To score this test, Ms. Begay counts up the number of words read correctly in one minute and writes the score at the bottom of the scoring form.

In review:

WIF is for first-grade students or below grade-level students who are not able to read passages

Students are presented with a list of 50 words

Students read words for 1 minute

Teacher marks a "1" if the response is correct and a "0" if the response is incorrect

To determine the score, the teacher counts the number of correct responses

Listen as Leonard Baca discusses the issue of linguistic diversity in relation to administering and scoring progress monitoring probes, then listen to Alfredo Artiles discuss concerns about using Spanish translations of English language assessments.

Leonard Baca, PhD
Director, BUENO Center
for Multicultural Education
University of Colorado, Boulder

(time: 0:55)

Alfredo Artiles, PhD
Professor, College of Education, Arizona State University
Co-Principal Investigator, National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRRESt)

(time: 1:01)

Transcript: Leonard Baca, PhD

Pronunciation is somewhat irrelevant in terms of cognitive and academic growth. There's an acceptable American accent and pronunciation that would be nice for everyone to have, but people pronounce things differently from the Northeast, from the Southwest, etc. That is irrelevant to academic and cognitive understanding. So teachers need to be very flexible in their interpretation of pronunciation for bilingual and linguistically different kids. Allowing them to use their standard dialect and certain sounds that they might not be able to produce as some standard-English speakers might produce would count as correct, in my view, because it had nothing to do with the academic content of the material. I really think teachers need to be very open and flexible to scoring those properly because accent has nothing to do with achievement.

Transcript: Alfredo Artiles, PhD

The idea of validity is concerned with to what extent are we measuring what we are supposed to be measuring with this assessment? We assume, by translating items, that the translation is going to reflect the same constructs or notions in the second language that we were trying to get at with the English version of the test. However, when you translate items then you run into a number of problems. One, the level of difficulty of certain items, for example, in the translated version might change. Items that were perceivably easier in English, when they are translated into Spanish, they have a higher level of difficulty because of the nuances and the meanings are altered in the translation process, and vice-versa. Then you run into the issue of dialectical variations in a language. So you have subtle differences in the way the language is used and whether they might mean very different things.

The primary purpose of progress monitoring in Tier 1 is to determine which students are making adequate instructional progress and which are not. Following the universal screening, the progress of the students identified as struggling should be monitored at least once each week for a period of 6-10 weeks. After each probe is administered, the teacher or student plots the score on an individual CBM graph. Click to see a sample CBM graph. An examination of the data plotted on the CBM graph will allow the teacher to determine whether a student is making adequate progress. Assuming that students are receiving high-quality instruction in Tier 1, those who do not respond adequately are provided with a standard intervention in Tier 2.
Sample CBM Graph
The sample CBM graph below shows how a teacher might indicate a student's reading performance over eight weeks of classroom instruction.

Click here for a blank graph that can be used with a variety of probes, or click here for a list of commercially available CBM graphing software that both graphs and helps interpret student data.
CBM Graphing Software Resources

Company/Program

Key Features

Contact Info

AIMSweb/Edformation

Can purchase computer software with program for automatic graphing and analysis of student progress.

http://www.aimsweb.com
Phone: 866-313-6194

DIBELS

Program allows online automated reports.
http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Edcheckup

Student tests (K-6) are administered and scored through the computer. Program generates reports and graphs to track progress of a class or student and provides guidelines for setting and evaluating goals.

http://www.edcheckup.com
Phone: 952-229-1440
Mail:
WebEdCo
7701 York Avenue South Suite 250
Edina, MN 55435

McGraw-Hill

Provides a system to manage and report data. Allows teachers to follow student mastery and retention of grade-level skills as well as to compare student, class, school, or district progress against state/national standards.

http://www.mhdigitallearning.com
Phone: 1-800-848-1567
ext. 4928

Pro-Ed, Inc.

Provides student and classwide reports.

http://www.proedinc.com/customer/default.aspx
Phone: 800-897-2302
Mail: 8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, TX 78757-6897

(Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D., 2004)

For Your Information

A teacher may choose to monitor the progress of all students in the classroom in the general education classroom (i.e., Tier 1). Doing so can help the teacher tailor instruction to meet the needs of the class. It also can help determine whether students are receiving high-quality instruction in the general education classroom. Students who receive high-quality instruction typically show increased reading performance levels and rates of growth across the year. On the other hand, if students in the class generally do not show adequate growth in their reading skills, the cause might be inadequate instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Broadly speaking, all students receive Tier 1 services, regardless of their ability levels. As a result, many RTI practitioners consider universal screening a component of Tier 1 rather than a separate component. In this module, universal screening and Tier 1 have been treated separately simply to highlight the differences in the assessment process for these two RTI components.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides support to teachers by listing the steps for setting up Tier 1 goals, ways to provide more intense and effective Tier 1 interventions, and examples of Tier 1 interventions. Some of these interventions include the use of positive reinforcement, establishing clear goals and expectations, setting a routine, and providing choice to students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are Tier 1 interventions? | Renaissance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How can you use Tier 1 interventions to reach the goals you set for student learning? Find out here.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Develop an Effective Tier 2 System

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Develop an Effective Tier 2 System

# data[].attributes.body
The following article describes the purpose of the Tier 2 system and interventions, explains the necessary parts of a Tier 2 system (a data management system, appropriate interventions based on data, and a Tier 2 team), and provides recommendations for implementation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get Email Updates

Sign up to receive the RTI Action Network e-newsletter.

We worked with an elementary school across 2 school years to implement a comprehensive model of tiered service delivery focused on improving both academic and behavioral outcomes for students. We
blogged about the project on the RTI Action Network, focusing on various aspects of implementation throughout the 2 years. The tiered service delivery model included the essential components of Response to Intervention (RTI; as delineated by the National Center on Response to Intervention [NCRTI] in 2010) and
Tier 2 is defined by the NCRTI as small-group instruction that relies on evidence-based interventions that specify the instructional procedures, duration, and frequency of instruction (NCRTI, 2010). According to the NCRTI, Tier 2 has three characteristics that distinguish it from core instruction: 1) it is evidence-based, 2) it consists of small-group instruction, and 3) it involves a clearly articulated intervention implemented with fidelity. According to this definition, Tier 2 is meant to provide a limited, but targeted, support system for students who struggle to meet grade-level performance standards. The goal of Tier 2 is to remediate academic skill deficits with the idea that in doing so, students will be successful in the Tier 1 program without support.

Once the purpose of the Tier 2 system is articulated, it becomes easier to conceptualize and consider what will be needed to accomplish this purpose. In our work with schools, we have identified three necessary components of a Tier 2 system, the specifics of which will vary depending on the stated purpose: 1) a data management system, 2) the appropriate interventions based on what is shown by the data, and 3) a Tier 2 team charged with the oversight and management of the system.

Through the process of working with schools on these types of issues, we have discovered that one of the challenges of Tier 2 is that it represents a very new process for most schools. As such, it is difficult to realize that it is best approached as a systems issue. Because practitioners are quite devoted to supporting students, the tendency in many schools is to begin providing intervention support immediately, without engaging in the systems planning approach as described above. This can result in a very haphazard intervention process that will likely not be as effective as one designed based on a thorough analysis of data, an alignment of instruction with student need, and dedicated personnel to manage the system. To get started with these three components, it is helpful for schools to address the personnel, procedures, resources, and communications necessary for implementation.

We have worked with a number of schools that are well on their way to implementing successful Tier 2 systems. The road to implementation was not always clear, however. Perhaps the main lesson we have learned when working with schools is that the implementation of new practices, especially those as comprehensive as the ones described here, will be fraught with challenges. Our experience with Tier 2 implementation, however, helped to uncover one very important lesson: A successful Tier 2 implementation requires a systems approach to coordinate the purpose, components, and key actions that help ensure success for the school and for the students. It is our hope that by articulating such an approach in this article, we will have provided some guidance to support practitioners working on implementing effective intervention systems within their settings.

Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2009). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, March). Essential components of RTI-A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.
Shapiro, E. S., & Clemens, N. H. (2009). A conceptual model for evaluating systems effects of RTI. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 3-16.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23-50.

Personnel needs include specifying not only who will provide the intervention(s), but also who will collect data and who will have overall responsibility for monitoring data and leading the team through the decision-making process. In addition to specifying responsibilities, it is important to determine the training and professional development needs to help key personnel carry out their roles.

Procedures for interpreting data are essential for helping to drive the Tier 2 system. Teams should specify decision rules for determining when a student enters Tier 2 intervention, when a student is making adequate progress, when instructional changes need to be considered, and when students should be either exited from Tier 2, continue in Tier 2, or considered for referral for more intensive intervention. Many progress-monitoring systems specify rates of improvement and benchmarks that can serve as guidelines for decision making. Additionally, if the intended purpose of Tier 2 is to support getting students to grade level so that they can be successful in the general program, then setting targets related to that overall goal can help streamline the process of goal setting. Procedures regarding the frequency, duration, and intensity of the instructional program in Tier 2 should also be specified.

In addition to addressing personnel and procedures, it is important to identify and allocate resources to support a Tier 2 implementation, including access to instructional materials, assessment tools, space to provide the intervention, and time. An additional component of ensuring adequate resources includes making school-wide decisions about reallocation if necessary.

Finally, because Tier 2 is a subsystem within the larger school-wide RTI system, communication is critical. Intervention teams need to communicate about student progress, the management of data, and the related instructional decisions. Intervention providers need to discuss progress with general education teachers. The school team needs to communicate with parents about the purpose and design of the Tier 2 system. Systems for routine communication need to be designed and implemented.

With regard to data management, developing a process for data collection and evaluation is an important first step. The data to be collected include benchmark or screening data, progress-monitoring data to determine whether the intervention is effective, and outcome data to determine whether the intervention and system of instruction is helping students meet grade-level outcomes. Data must be compiled and reviewed to make decisions that support continuous improvement. In the school we worked in, a lot of data were collected, but there was no school-wide system for data evaluation and decision making. We worked with the teachers and the principal to establish regular data-review meetings to routinely consider student progress and make instructional changes as required. In this particular school, we decided to use the program CBMFocus because it is free, is user-friendly, and provides an easy-to-read visual display of data. Additionally, we drew on the work of Shapiro and Clemens (2009) and asked the school to include as a level of analysis data on movement not only within tiers (i.e., to show whether students were making progress), but also movement across tiers (i.e., to show whether students were exiting more intense tiers of instruction).

Once the process of data evaluation was explained, the data also helped to inform decisions about instructional programming in Tier 2. As mentioned earlier, the initial review of school performance indicated that once a student was identified as being at risk, that child tended to remain at risk for the remainder of the school year. To better understand the particular needs of the students who were struggling, their assessment data were reviewed. In general, students in the early grades (1st through 3rd) who were struggling did not have a strong knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, were unable to decode unknown words, and did not have a large sight-word vocabulary. This was not surprising given that a central focus of early reading instruction is decoding. The more severe a student's deficit in reading, and in particular in decoding, the more careful the instruction must be (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarver, 2009). Because the direct instruction of letter-sound correspondences to teach children how to sound out words is one of the most effective ways to support students who struggle with learning to read (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998), we worked with the school to implement Tier 2 reading instruction designed according to the principles of direct instruction.

As a result of this process, the school realized that to sustain this type of program, they would need to dedicate a school-level team to manage the process. A school-level team consisting of the principal, a grade-level teacher (the teacher providing the Tier 2 instruction for that particular grade), and the special education teacher was created. Although grade-level teams managed general education instruction (Tier 1), the Tier 2 team took on the added role of looking at data and intervention across grade levels and, in particular, within the Tier 2 program. This put a mechanism in place for the school to ensure that as the needs of their children might change, a responsive instructional program could be identified and implemented to support those needs. The team meets on a regular basis to review data, problem-solve for students who are not making progress, and continue to refine their Tier 2 instruction so that it is highly effective for at-risk students.

As of the date of this writing, the school is happy to report that more than 80% of their students receiving Tier 2 instruction are making strong growth toward grade-level performance standards!

The reality for most schools is that they do not have adequate resources to implement a comprehensive intervention system as defined above. Many schools struggle with implementation because it seems overwhelming to meet the specifications of a well-designed Tier 2 system, which makes getting started difficult. In our work with schools, we have found that leading a school team through the analysis of school-wide benchmark and outcome data to determine priorities for Tier 2 is the best way to get started. By analyzing patterns across content areas and grade levels, a school team can usually identify one or two priority areas and use those areas as a good basis for getting started. For example, we recently worked with a school that was interested in developing a Tier 2 system with a focus on reading. We reviewed their reading benchmark data and found an interesting trend. Overall, students at the school were progressing quite well with general education instruction. More than 85% of the students were meeting proficiency targets with Tier 1 instruction alone. However, at this school, once a student was identified as at risk for poor reading outcomes, that student tended to remain in the at-risk category. In other words, the instructional program in place to support at-risk students was not effective. So for this school, it became clear that they had a strong core program and a consistent way to identify struggling students. What was needed was a Tier 2 instructional program that was more supportive of the needs of the students at risk for poor reading outcomes.

school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS; see Sugai & Horner, 2002), integrated into a comprehensive system of student support. Within the tiered system, we selected instructional programs, practices and assessments with a strong evidence-base for use. Our implementation project had two main purposes: 1) to work with a school to support the successful implementation of this model within a school setting, and 2) to determine the systems, practices, and data (Sugai & Horner, 2002) required to support the scaling up of this research-based model to practice. As we worked with the school, we found that the area most challenging for personnel was the development of an effective Tier 2 system. An effective Tier 2 system is critical within a tiered service delivery model because it represents a mechanism for systematically providing early intervention for students who are at risk for poor outcomes.

What we have discovered through this project, as well as through our work with other schools, is that although many practitioners understand the overall purpose of RTI and understand each of the individual components, they remain unsuccessful in implementing RTI as a school-wide model. One area that seems particularly problematic for schools concerns how to develop a Tier 2 system that supports students who require additional support to successfully meet grade-level performance standards but who do not necessarily qualify for more intense services such as special education.
One potential explanation for this disconnect is that an effective Tier 2 system requires numerous steps for implementation, including 1) articulating the overall purpose of implementation, 2) enumerating the components of the system, and then 3) specifying the key areas (i.e., personnel, data, procedures, resources, and communication) for implementation. What we learned from our project is that the challenge for school personnel lies not in understanding what to do, but rather, in understanding how to do it. In this article we hope to provide some of the much-needed how by discussing a process for implementation, with a particular focus on developing a Tier 2 infrastructure.

Articulating a Purpose for Tier 2 Implementation

Identify Needed Components to Accomplish the Purpose

Key Areas for Implementation

Conclusions

References

Back To Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Develop an Effective Tier 2 System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RTINetwork.org guides educators and families in the effective implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a means to improve educational outcomes for all students.

# data[].attributes.body
The attachment provides teachers with practice strategies to use in the classroom for use of Tier 1 interventions and how these strategies can be aligned to students receive Tier 3 interventions.