RTI Manual Case Studies

Section 5
School Examples, Student Case

Studies, and Research Examples
August 2006
• School Examples, page Overview

5.3 In November 2002, the United States Department of Education requested
– School-Wide Screening, that the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) identify,
page 5.4
describe, and evaluate the implementation of responsiveness to intervention
– Progress Monitoring, page
(RTI) in elementary schools throughout the United States. The NRCLD staff
5.5
– Tiered Service Delivery,
worked with the six Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) to identify potential
page 5.9 sites and solicit school participation. More than 60 schools across the country
– Data-Based Decision initially were considered, and information from 41 of those schools was submit-
Making, page 5.13 ted. The NRCLD research staff reviewed the extensive amount of information
– Parent Involvement, page submitted and judged that 19 of those schools were engaging in one or more
5.16 commendable RTI practices based on a review of the following six components
– Resources, page 5.22 of an RTI service-delivery model:
• Student Case Studies, • School-wide screening. Screening is a type of assessment characterized by
page 5.26 quick, low cost, repeatable testing of critical academic skills or behaviors
– Bryanna, page 5.26 and can be administered by individuals with minimal amounts of training. A
– Jayden, page 5.31 screening measures whether a student should be judged at risk. If a student
– Lauren, page 5.41 meets the criteria for at-risk status, he or she is considered for more in-depth
– Michael, page 5.50 assessment. Screenings can use either a criterion referenced or normative
– Resources, page 5.57
comparison standard for measuring student performance.
• Research Study • Progress monitoring. Progress monitoring is a set of assessment procedures
Examples, page 5.62 for determining the extent to which a student or students are benefiting from
– National Research Center classroom instruction. When applied with rigor, progress monitoring ad-
on Learning Disabilities,
page 5.62 dresses the federal stipulations that students deemed as having a disability
– Centers for Implementing have not benefited from general education instruction.
K-3 Behavior and Reading
• Tiered service delivery. The public health profession long ago adopted a
Intervention Models, page
5.71 tiered approach to services. This approach can be used to explain RTI tiered
– Resources, page 5.76 service delivery of increasingly intense interventions directed at more spe-
cific deficits while targeting smaller segments of the population. In the pub-
lic health example, the general population receives wellness information
about how to stay healthy and receives broad vaccinations. That is consid-
ered the first or primary tier of intervention. However, some members of the
general population might become ill or, as a result of large-scale screening,
might need more specialized treatment. They could be judged as at risk for
particular complications. This higher level is considered the secondary level
of intervention, which is not provided to the general population but instead
is provided for this smaller segment, maybe 10 to 15 percent of the general
NRCLD is a joint project of researchers at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas. This document was produced under
U.S. Department of Education Grant No. H324U010004. Renee Bradley served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do
not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department
of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.
RTI Manual
population. Within this smaller segment, some • Parent involvement. Parent involvement is con-
individuals, roughly 5 percent of the total popu- sistent, organized, and meaningful two-way
lation, are going to need very specialized inter- communication between school staff and par-
ventions. This highest level is called the tertiary ents with regard to student progress and related
level of intervention and by design is the most school activities. This communication allows
intense and most costly level of intervention. In parents to play an important role in their child’s
the same way we understand that the general education.
population benefits from receiving an optimal
• Fidelity of implementation. Fidelity of imple-
health intervention, we can imagine that all
mentation is the delivery of content and in-
students would benefit from closely matching
structional strategies in the way in which they
instructional and curricular approaches to their
were intended to be delivered. The delivery of
current level of functioning and need. That is
instruction must be accurate and consistent. Al-
the role of tiered service delivery.
though interventions are aimed at students, fi-
• Data-based decision making. Accurate imple- delity measures are focused on the individuals
mentation requires a shared understanding of who provide the instruction.
options (e.g., choices of interventions) and the This section of the RTI Manual profiles informa-
basis on which those intervention decisions are tion from some of the schools that engage in com-
made. By having a public, objective, and norma- mendable RTI practices. Part One features schools
tive framework of “at risk,” “responsiveness,” that have implemented one or more of the RTI com-
and “unresponsiveness,” school staff will have ponents. Part Two describes longitudinal data from
a basis for guiding their decisions. For example, individual students who have received services un-
when school staff and parents understand the der an RTI delivery model. Part Three describes re-
expected oral reading fluency growth rates, de- search studies that have employed RTI models.
cisions about a student’s responsiveness can be
judged more accurately.
5.2 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Part One
School Examples
Background view their RTI procedures as a “work in prog-

In this section, we provide school-based exam- ress.” Staff members we have worked with are
ples of five of the six components that are important reflective and open in their critiques of their
to the implementation of an RTI service-delivery practices. They are committed to continued im-
model. For each of these five components (school- provement of their RTI implementations.
wide screening, progress monitoring, tiered service • These descriptions represent a “current status”
delivery, data-based decision making, and parent in- of implementation, not an ideal. We want to dis-
volvement), we describe one or more schools that courage the conclusion that other schools need
use an RTI service-delivery model and each school’s only replicate or adopt what is described in this
implementation process for the specific component section.
under discussion. • Due to numerous resource limitations, we have
The NRCLD staff is particularly grateful and not sufficiently provided the contextual infor-
acknowledges the tremendous efforts that numerous mation about the decision-making, the intended
school staffs expended in helping prepare these sec- outcomes, the development phases, costs, or
tions on school site examples and individual student even the significant staff development activi-
descriptions. Their efforts allowed us this opportu- ties that supported each implementation. Such
nity to become informed by their pioneering spirit details are critical to understanding, evaluating,
and achievements. and promoting the policies, procedures, and
As you read these descriptions, please keep the practices reflected in the descriptions that fol-
following points in mind: low.
• Our intent is to describe examples of RTI im- We urge you to reflect on these descriptions de-
plementation as illustrative of current practices. liberately and carefully weigh this information so
These are real-world examples and thus may not that if you choose to use the information provided,
reflect the same practices and standards present- the decision to do so is made in the context of this
ed in controlled research studies, such as those incomplete information.
described on pages 5.62 to 5.76.
• Staff members at the schools in which these Note: For more information about the instructional
practices have been implemented generally feel programs and assessments mentioned in this
positive about their efforts, their outcomes, and section, see pages 5.22-5.25.
their progress. At the same time, they tend to
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.3

RTI Manual
School-Wide Screening
Jefferson Elementary School
Pella, Iowa
(Spring 2006)
Overview and demographics

Jefferson Elementary School has a total enroll-
ment of 500 students, with two sections each of kin-
Percentage of Student Population

95%
dergarten through third grade and six sections each
of fourth and fifth grades. Nearly equal numbers of
girls and boys attend the school. About 14 percent 50% 50%
of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch,
and about 6.6 percent are served in special educa-
14%
tion. Five percent of the students are minority stu- 5% 6.6% 1%
dents, 95 percent are Caucasian, and six students are Cauca- Minority Boys Girls Free/ Special ELL
sian Reduced Education (n=6)
English language learners (ELL). Lunch
Jefferson Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- Total enrollment=500, K-5
vention model uses the following structure: Tier 1,
Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, and special education.
mine which students need instruction beyond Tier
Screening in reading 1 and which interventions will be most effective in
Kindergartners and first-graders are screened meeting student needs.
using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Progress monitoring data also guide the deter-
Skills (DIBELS) assessments in the fall, winter, and mination of the effectiveness of the interventions.
spring. The school also uses DIBELS fluency and
accuracy assessments for students in the second and Fluency norms
third grades and Fuchs’ fluency and accuracy as- Fluency norms are based on norms set by
sessments for students in the fourth and fifth grades. Houghton Mifflin, Jefferson’s reading series. DI-
In addition to the fluency and accuracy measures, BELS probes are used for students in kindergarten
students in the second through fifth grades are as- through third grades, and Letter Sound Fluency
sessed with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) in Tests are used for students in fourth and fifth grades.
November and the Gates-McGinitie assessment in To be considered to be making satisfactory progress,
April. (Second graders are also given the Gates-Mc- students at all grade levels must have 95 percent ac-
Ginitie in October.) Jefferson Elementary also uses curacy (total words correct/total words read) on the
a variety of assessments to measure specific district fluency probes. Charts are used to indicate words
benchmarks. correct per minute on a one-minute timed reading.
Screening data and reference points Literacy day sessions and data
When analyzing students’ screening data, the The Literacy Team, which includes general and
school uses reference points, not specific cut scores. special education teachers, Reading Plus teachers,
The reference points are used to indicate whether Area Educational Agency staff, the curriculum di-
a student is performing below expectations and to rector, and the principal, meets three times a year for
guide school staff members as they determine ap- Literacy Day sessions. These sessions occur just af-
propriate interventions for students. The reference ter district-wide student screenings and allow team
points, or scores, match up with proficiency scores members to review the district-wide screening data
of standardized tests. as well as data from the other school-wide screen-
No single score stands alone in determining in- ing measures. Data are then used to make necessary
terventions for students, but rather data from mul- changes to current student interventions and to iden-
tiple sources (benchmark scores, fluency screenings, tify students who require more individualized and
DIBELS, ITBS, Gates-McGinitie) are used to deter- more intensive interventions.
For example, a Literacy Day Data sheet for a minister fluency and accuracy screenings to reduce
fifth-grade class would include the names of the stu- the time teachers spend on assessments. They also
dents in the left-hand column and scores earned by use associates and Central College students to help
each of those students on September fluency and ac- in various ways.
curacy measures and the Gates-McGinitie compre- Appropriate screening materials. School staff
hension and vocabulary tests. A companion sheet, members also appreciate the challenge of determin-
Literacy Day Notes, would also be used during ing appropriate screening materials. They agree that
meeting discussions. Again, student names would some choices (e.g., ITBS) are easy; more difficult
be in the left-hand column with adjacent columns to find are screening assessments to match the skills
for noting the student’s areas of need, current inter- for which they want to screen. Another challenge is
ventions, and comments. As discussion progresses to acquire and use multiple sources of data to help
during the sessions, changes are made based on stu- validate skill deficits.
dent data, students with skill deficits are considered Data-based decision making. Using the data to
for services, and students with extension needs are make appropriate decisions regarding interventions
considered for gifted and talented placement. has also been a challenge for Jefferson Elementary
staff. After being collected, data must be stored and
RTI screening challenges sorted so they can be easily analyzed. While analyz-
Time. Time is a big issue when conducting ing the data, decisions must be made about how to
school-wide screenings. Jefferson Elementary staff provide interventions to students when no current
members have trained a group of volunteers to ad- program matches their needs.
Progress Monitoring
Cornell Elementary School
Des Moines, Iowa
(Spring 2006)
Overview and demographics Cornell Elementary School

Cornell Elementary School’s enrollment con-
sists of 440 students in preschool through third

grade. Nearly 43 percent (187) of those students
receive free or reduced lunch. Thirty-two students
are served in special education, and five are English 43%
language learners (ELL).
Cornell Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter-
vention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, 7%
1%
Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Free/ Special ELL
Reduced Education (n=5)
Progress monitoring in the core curriculum Lunch
Within the core curriculum, progress monitoring Total enrollment=440, Pre-K-5

is recommended if a student is new to the district and
the initial assessment shows at-risk performance, if a ers, nonsense word fluency is assessed in the fall;
student has previously received supplemental or in- oral reading fluency is assessed in the spring. School
tervention support and is now performing at bench- staff use oral reading fluency measures for second-
mark level, or if a teacher has concerns about the and third-graders three times a year.
amount of progress a student is making. For these
students, progress is monitored weekly using DI- Core outcomes: next steps
BELS measures. School staff assess kindergartners’ Progress monitoring in the core curriculum will
initial sound fluency in the fall and their phoneme be discontinued for those students who score at or
segmentation fluency in the winter. For first-grad- above the benchmark performance level. School

RTI Manual
staff will further analyze the performance of stu- • continuing to receive core plus supplemental in-
dents who score below the benchmark performance, struction
with the goal of matching instruction to student For students who have four consecutive reading
need. These students may remain in the core cur- probe data points below the established goal line,
riculum with changes to instruction/practice or may who are scoring below the benchmark performance,
be placed in core plus supplemental support. or whose slope of performance falls below the goal
line (trend line), three options are considered:
Planning supplemental support • further analysis or assessment
Options considered when planning supplemen- • continuing in core plus supplemental support
tal support and matching students’ needs with the with changes
appropriate type and intensity of resources and in- • core plus supplemental instruction plus inter-
struction include the following: vention(s)
• more instructional or practice time
• smaller instructional groups Planning supplemental support
• more precisely targeted instruction at the right Options considered when planning instructional
level support and interventions for struggling students in-
• more explicit explanations clude the following:
• more systematic instructional sequences • more instructional time
• more extensive opportunities for guided prac- • smaller instructional groups
tice • more precisely targeted instruction at the right
• more opportunities for corrective feedback level
• more explicit explanations
Progress monitoring for core plus • more systematic instructional sequences
supplemental instruction • more extensive opportunities for guided prac-
For students who receive supplemental instruc- tice
tion, progress is monitored often twice each week • more opportunities for corrective feedback.
rather than only once as with the core curriculum.
School staff use DIBELS measures to assess kinder- Progress monitoring challenges
gartners’ initial sound fluency in the fall and their Follow-up coaching and support. For Cornell
phoneme segmentation fluency in the winter. Staff Elementary School, one of the greatest challenges
members assess first-graders’ nonsense word fluen- continues to be ensuring the fidelity of follow-up
cy in the fall and oral reading fluency in the spring. coaching and support for supplemental and inter-
For second-graders, oral reading fluency is assessed; vention-level instruction in vocabulary and compre-
for third-graders both oral reading fluency and retell hension.
fluency are assessed. Fidelity. An additional challenge for this school
staff is ensuring continued fidelity of implementa-
Core plus supplemental outcomes: next steps tion of supplemental and intervention-level instruc-
For students whose slope of performance is tion over time.
on the goal line or who are scoring at or above the Time. Finding additional instruction and prac-
benchmark performance level, two options are con- tice time (core plus supplemental plus intervention)
sidered: without sacrificing other core academic subjects re-
• a return to core instruction with progress moni- mains a challenge.
toring occurring weekly

Dalton Gardens Elementary School

Dalton Gardens, Idaho
(Spring 2006)

Dalton Gardens Elementary School’s enroll-
ment consists of 411 students in kindergarten through

fifth grade. Of those students, 55 percent are male. 93%
The number of classes for each grade is as follows:

kindergarten–two; first grade–two; second grade– 55% 45%
three; third grade–three; fourth grade–three; and fifth
grade–two. Nineteen percent of the students are eli- 19%
gible for free or reduced lunch. Ninety-three percent 7% 3% < 1%
of the students are Caucasian (not Hispanic), with the Cauca- Asian, Boys Girls Free/ Special ELL
remaining 7 percent being nearly equally represented sion Hispanic, Reduced Education (n=1)
African- Lunch
by Asian, Hispanic, and African-American students. American
Fifteen students are served in special education, and Total enrollment=411, K-5
one student is an English language learner (ELL).
Dalton Gardens Elementary’s responsiveness-
to-intervention model uses the following structure: • placing students who need additional assistance
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. in a staff-supported study hall
Reading groups Progress monitoring at Tier 3

In second through fifth grades, the children are To monitor the progress of students working
placed in skills-based groups to maximize reading at the Tier 3 level, Dalton Gardens continues with
instruction. the same measures and cut points used for progress
monitoring at Tier 2: letter naming fluency, pho-
Progress monitoring at Tier 2 neme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency,
To monitor the progress of students working at and oral reading fluency for students in first grade;
a level below that of their peers, school staff use DI- nonsense word fluency and oral reading fluency for
BELS and Read Naturally weekly. DIBELS is used students in second grade; and oral reading fluency
for fluency monitoring – letter naming fluency, pho- for students in third through fifth grades.
neme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency,
and oral reading fluency for students in first grade; Outcomes for Tier 3: next steps
nonsense word fluency and oral reading fluency for If a student is making progress, school staff con-
students in second grade; and oral reading fluency tinue all interventions and continue to monitor prog-
for students in third through fifth grades. Read Natu- ress. If a student is not making progress, school staff
rally is used to practice and monitor fluency and to answer the following four questions to make their
assess comprehension. decision about entitlement:
• Is there resistance to general education interven-
Outcomes at Tier 2: next steps tions?
If a student is making progress, school staff con- • Are resources beyond those available in the
tinue all interventions and continue to monitor prog- general education curriculum necessary to en-
ress. If a student is not making progress, school staff able the child to participate and progress in the
choose a course of action that could include general education curriculum?
• pre-teaching lessons in a small group just before • Is there evidence of severe discrepancy between
the lesson student’s performance and peers’ performance
• decreasing the number of students per teacher in the area of concern?
using teaching assistants or special education • Is there a convergence of evidence that logically
teachers to work with small groups and empirically supports the team’s decision?
• adding small-group and one-on-one instruction
to a student’s day
RTI Manual
Progress monitoring challenges on both the IRI and ISAT, even after interventions, it
Dalton Gardens Elementary School staff con- is likely that the student will be given Tier 2 instruc-
tinue to be challenged by: tion, with the hope of improvement on state assess-
• Who does the progress monitoring? ments and class work.
• When will it get done in an already busy day? What decision rules are used for progress mon-
• Is DIBELS being used with fidelity? itoring? If a student has three data points that are
• Are staff members all doing progress monitor- above the aim line, Dalton staff either continue with
ing the same way? (Staff members have been the interventions or increase the student’s goal. If
trained at different times and by different peo- a student has three data points below the aim line,
ple.) Dalton staff change the intervention by changing the
targeted skill or by increasing the amount of time
Additional information about specific spent with the intervention(s). If a student continues
decision rules to have data points below the aim line (again, the
Specific decision rules. Dalton Gardens Elemen- three data points rule is used), school staff will work
tary School uses specific cut scores that are provided with the student in a smaller group (two to three stu-
by the state for the Idaho Standards Achievement dents) or will work with the student one-on-one.
Tests (ISAT) and the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI). The RTI process at Dalton Gardens Elementary
Decisions about next steps are made at the individ- School is child-centered. School staff members look
ual level. Staff members look at the students indi- at the students individually and plan for them indi-
vidually; a team meets every nine weeks to discuss vidually. They recognize that all children are differ-
progress, look at graphs, and decide what the next ent and what might work for one may not work for
steps for an individual student should be. another. They try to do what is best for each child
What decision rules about a student’s scores on individually. If several students fit into a group,
the screening assessments lead to a student being then that is great for school staff, but the school will
placed in Tier 2 instruction? The state provides the provide interventions one-on-one, if needed. Dal-
IRI and ISAT cut scores to Dalton. During a team ton staff provide early intervention and put a great
meeting, the team discusses the student’s scores on amount of effort into the interventions with the goal
these state assessments and determines whether the of having students working at grade level, with the
scores match the student’s work in the classroom realization that some students need sustained inter-
and whether there are concerns about this student. If ventions and instruction in a different setting.
a student continues to score below basic proficiency

Tiered Service Delivery

Rosewood Elementary School
Vero Beach, Florida
(Spring 2006)
Overview and demographics Rosewood Elementary School

Rosewood Elementary School’s enrollment

consists of 549 students in kindergarten through
fifth grade. Each grade level comprises four or five
classes. Of the total students, 165 (30 percent) are
receiving free or reduced lunch, 14 are English lan-
30%
guage learners (ELL), and 69 (including 16 gifted)
are served in special education. 13%
Rosewood Elementary’s responsiveness-to-in- 2%
tervention model uses the following structure: Tier Free/ Special ELL
1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Lunch
Total enrollment=549, K-5

Core classroom instruction: Tier 1
The goal of Tier 1 instruction is to maximize the
learning for all students using a strong research-based small-group instruction to enable student perfor-
core curriculum to ensure that students meet grade- mance to reach or exceed grade-level standards. The
level standards. The general education teacher uses academic improvement plan team, which includes
Harcourt Trophies for reading instruction during an the general education teacher, the reading coach,
uninterrupted two-hour block each day. Instruction and the elementary specialist, are all involved with
is with the whole class and also with small groups the instruction, which takes place in the general
of seven to 10 students each. The general education education classroom. Instructional materials include
teacher assesses the students with DIBELS (kinder- the Harcourt Trophies Intervention Program with
gartners and first-graders) and the Harcourt Holistic American Federation of Teacher’s Educational Re-
assessment (first-graders through fifth-graders). search & Dissemination “Five-Step Plan,” Earobics,
In general, students in all tiers receive two hours Road to the Code, Great Leaps, and Quick Reads.
of reading instruction each day, although the length Tier 2 instruction is conducted for two hours in both
of time spent with reading instruction varies de- whole and small-group instruction. Small-group
pending on the needs of the student. In Tier 2, group size ranges from five to seven students. This instruc-
size decreases and instruction is more targeted and tion occurs during the same time frame as Tier 1;
specific. Students in Tier 3 may receive extra in- however, small-group instruction is more targeted
structional time to address individual needs, and the and specific.
staff member who provides the instruction varies. Screening assessments for Tier 2 include DI-
Staff members involved in Tier 3 instruction include BELS (kindergarten and first grade) and Harcourt
the general education teacher, reading coach, stu- Oral Reading Fluency (second through fifth grade).
dent support specialist, elementary specialist, school Diagnostic assessments for Tier 2 instruction in-
psychologist, exceptional student education (ESE) clude Fox in a Box (kindergarten through second
teacher, and speech-language pathologist. Instruc- grade) and Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (third
tion takes place in the general education classroom. through fifth grade). School staff monitor student
progress using Harcourt Holistic assessments (first
Instruction at Tier 2 through fifth grades) and specific assessments for
Students involved in Tier 2 instruction are those individual interventions.
students not reaching grade-level reading standards. Professional development related to Tier 1 and
The goal of Tier 2 instruction is to diagnose academ- Tier 2 instruction is offered through district work-
ic concerns and systematically apply research-based shops scheduled for early release Wednesdays every
RTI Manual
two weeks and through Professional Learning Com- tion Program and Wilson Reading; these are used
munities. District workshops cover the five compo- on an individual basis or in small groups of no more
nents of balanced reading. The Professional Learn- than five students. Instructional blocks of time are
ing Communities at Rosewood include the follow- two hours in length plus any additional time that is
ing: kindergarten–interactive writing; first grade– needed to implement instruction and interventions.
fluency; second grade–comprehension (author’s Assessments include those used in other tiers plus
purpose and comparison and contrast benchmarks); progress monitoring using AIMSweb Oral Read-
third grade–expository text strategies for references ing Fluency and Maze. Professional development
and research strand; fourth grade–reading compre- includes all the general education offerings plus
hension (main idea); and fifth grade–comprehension training on specific curricula and progress monitor-
targeting reference and research and main idea. ing. Also included in the professional development
activities are the following Professional Learning
Instruction at Tier 3 Communities: Behavior Management Techniques
Instruction in Tier 3 is focused on those students and Strategies to Enhance Academic Performance.
who do not respond to Tier 2 instruction, with the
goal of providing intensive, individualized or small- Decision rules for Tier 2 and Tier 3
group, research-based instruction and intervention A student should move from Tier 1 to Tier 2 if
to eliminate the discrepancies between student screening assessments indicate that the student is
performance and grade-level expectations. Staff not meeting benchmark(s), the student’s classroom
members involved in Tier 3 instruction include the grades are below average, or the classroom teacher
general education teacher, reading coach, student formally requests assistance. A student should leave
support specialist, elementary specialist, school Tier 2 and return to Tier 1 if she or he is meeting
psychologist, ESE teacher, and speech-language benchmarks and course work is on grade level. Tier
pathologist. Instruction takes place in the general 2 instruction generally lasts for nine weeks. Howev-
education classroom for two hours a day with er, a student may move to Tier 3 sooner if progress is
additional extra time as needed to address individual not being made. This unresponsiveness is indicated
student needs. Tier 3 instruction is usually done one- by a lack of progress toward intervention goals such
on-one; small-group instruction consists of groups as three consecutive data points below the aim line.
of five students or fewer. Instructional materials A student should move to Tier 3 if the student
include the Harcourt Trophies Intervention Program shows inadequate progress with Tier 2 interventions
with American Federation of Teacher’s Educational (three data points below the aim line) but should re-
Research & Dissemination “Five-Step Plan,” turn to Tier 2 from Tier 3 if the student has mastered
Earobics, Road to the Code, Great Leaps, and Quick the goals and can maintain the rate of progress with
Reads. Individual interventions are used to address Tier 2 support. A student should continue with Tier 3
specific areas of concern. School staff monitor instruction when progress predicts grade-level perfor-
progress weekly using DIBELS, AIMSweb Oral mance within a year and if inadequate progress indi-
Reading Fluency, or AIMSweb MAZE. cates a need to modify or redesign the intervention.
Professional development is extensive, as de-
scribed in Tiers 1 and 2, and also includes Student Decision rules for special education (Tier 4)
Support Team staff development on problem solv- Special education (Tier 4) should be considered
ing and progress monitoring. when the targeted goal is not met or the student’s
trend line is below the aim line after implementing
Instruction at Tier 4 (special education) two or more interventions. Special education (Tier
Tier 4 (special education) instruction provides 4) also should be considered when a positive re-
sustained intensive support through a targeted cur- sponse in Tier 3 requires an intensity of resources
riculum for eligible students who need it to progress not available in general education. State regulations
toward grade-level expectations. The general educa- continue to require ability-achievement discrepancy
tion teacher and the ESE teacher share responsibili- for eligibility. Response to intervention data are used
ties for instruction, which takes place in the general as evidence of educational need and for educational
education classroom and in the ESE classroom. In- programming.
structional materials include the Harcourt Interven-

What Rosewood is learning through its RTI Finding manpower and resources. Rosewood
implementation needs to think “outside the box” to find the neces-
Need to shift from “eligibility” to “solving the sary manpower and resources to carry out interven-
problem.” Rosewood staff members have learned tions and progress monitoring.
that they need to continue the shift from making the Quest for accommodations for standardized
child eligible to solving the child’s learning problem. testing vs. the model. Rosewood believes that the
They believe that this may be best accomplished one desire to obtain accommodations for standardized
teacher at a time. testing works against this model.
Importance of instructor coaching. They have
also learned that coaching is the key to faithful im- Additional information about specific
plementation of interventions and to teachers feel- decision rules
ing supported. The processes used at Rosewood Elementary are
the result of years of researching, learning, search-
Tiered service delivery challenges ing, and experimenting, and staff still do not think
Development of a bank of evidence-based ac- that they have all the answers. RTI is a learning pro-
tivities. Rosewood needs to develop a “bank” of cess, and staff members believe they are doing a bet-
evidence-based activities to ensure quality interven- ter job of helping students, but they know they still
tions. have a great deal to learn.
Northstar Elementary School

Knoxville, Iowa
(Spring 2006)
Overview & demographics

Northstar Elementary School
Enrollment at Northstar Elementary School con-
sists of 350 students in kindergarten through fifth
grade. Each grade level comprises three classes. Of

the total student population, 133 students (38 per-
cent) receive free or reduced lunch, one student is an
English language learner (ELL), and 32 students are 38%
served in special education.
Northstar Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- 9%
vention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, < 1%
Free/ Special ELL
Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. Reduced Education (n=1)
Lunch
Tier 1: core classroom instruction Total enrollment=350, K-5

Reading instruction in Tier 1 (core classroom
instruction) is for all students and takes place in
the general education classroom. The kindergar- Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test, Basic Reading
ten teachers use Read Well; the first-grade general Inventory, Open Court unit tests, and Read Well for
education teachers use Read Well, Open Court, and student assessments. Staff members involved with
Write Well. Teachers in grades two through five use Tier 1 reading include the classroom teachers, Title
Open Court. I teachers, and the reading specialist.
Reading instruction for students in kindergarten Professional development for core classroom
through third grade is provided five days each week instruction focuses on Open Court, provided by the
for two and a half hours each day; for students in company consultant, and on Read Well.
grades four and five, reading instruction is provided
one and a half hours each day. General education Tier 2: instruction
teachers use DIBELS, Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Reading instruction in Tier 2 is supplemental
RTI Manual
instruction for students identified as “strategic,” a day, five days a week, in the general education class-
designation based on DIBELS criteria and synony- room or in the reading room. Assessments used to
mous with the DIBELS “Some Risk” cut score, if measure Tier 3 progress are the same as those used
that score is an intended benchmark at the time the during core instruction, with additional assessments
test is given. The curriculum and instruction in Tier (such as weekly probes, error analysis, and running
2 are based on an analysis of student need. Materials records) used as needed. Students in Tier 3 may
and programs used for Tier 2 instruction include RE- be assessed more frequently than students in Tier
WARDS, Read Naturally, Peer-Assisted Learning 2. Staff members who work with students in Tier
Strategies (PALS), Corrective Reading, Six-Minute 3 include classroom teachers, Title I teachers, the
Solution, Reading Mastery, and Quick Reads. reading specialist, associates, special teachers, and
Tier 2 instruction is provided in addition to the special education teachers.
core reading instruction and occurs for 45 to 60 min- Professional development for Tier 3 instruction
utes each day, three to five days per week, in the focuses on Open Court, provided by the company
general education classroom or the reading room. consultant; Read Well; and LETRS.
The assessments used to measure Tier 2 progress
are the same as those used during core instruction, Decision rules about movement to and from
with additional assessments used as needed (weekly tiers 2 and 3
probes, error analysis, and running records, for ex- School staff members base the decision to move
ample). The staff members who work with students a student to Tier 2 instruction based on weekly prog-
in Tier 2 include classroom teachers, Title I teachers, ress monitoring, individual goals, and research-de-
the reading specialist, associates (personnel hired termined expected growth rates. If it is determined
to assist teachers in helping students), and special that a student cannot be successful in the core gen-
teachers (art, music, physical education). Northstar eral education classroom, he or she may be moved
Elementary has three building associates and one to Tier 2. Those students who are able to be success-
Title I associate. ful in the core general education classroom remain
Professional development for Tier 2 instruction or return there.
focuses on Open Court, provided by the company Similarly, school staff members base the de-
consultant; Read Well; and Language Essentials for cision to move a student to Tier 3 instruction on
Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). weekly progress monitoring, individual goals, and
research-determined expected growth rates. If it is
Tier 3: instruction determined that a student cannot be successful in
Reading instruction in Tier 3 consists of supple- Tier 2, he or she may be moved to Tier 3.
mental instruction for students identified as “inten- Groups are very fluid and flexible; students of-
sive,” a designation based on DIBELS criteria and ten move among tiers throughout the year. Students
synonymous with the DIBELS “At Risk” cut score, are continually monitored regardless of tier and are
if that score is an intended benchmark at the time moved based on their needs.
the test is given. The curriculum and instruction in
Tier 3 are based on an analysis of student need. Tier Special education decisions
3 instruction differs from Tier 2 in that the group Students who are resistive to intervention sup-
size may be smaller, more time is spent on instruc- port are considered for special education. These
tion, and the instruction is more intensive. Programs students may demonstrate slower rates of progress
include REWARDS, Read Naturally, PALS, Correc- and significant discrepancy from average peers and
tive Reading, Six-Minute Solution, Reading Mas- may have needs beyond what general education can
tery, and Quick Reads. support without additional resources. Northstar El-
Tier 3 instruction is provided in addition to core ementary identifies students for special education
reading instruction and occurs for 60 minutes each based on need rather than on disability.

Data-Based Decision Making

Blue Ball Elementary School
Blue Ball, Pennsylvania
(Spring 2006)

Blue Ball Elementary School
Blue Ball Elementary School enrolls 393 stu-

dents in kindergarten through sixth grade, with two
classes for each grade. Of the total student popula-
tion, 21 percent receive free or reduced lunch, 26
students are served in special education, and eight
students are English language learners (ELL).
Blue Ball Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- 21%
vention model uses the following structure: Tier 1, 6% 2%
Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education.
Free/ Special ELL
Lunch
Assessment data used in decision making: Tier 1
Within Tier 1, kindergartners are assessed three Total enrollment=393, K-6
times. Assessments used include Curriculum Based
Measurement-math, DIBELS (reading), letter iden-
tification, Concepts About Print, and a fall writing Assessment data used in decision making: Tier 3
sample. In first grade (Tier 1), assessment data is Tier 3 kindergarten assessments occur weekly
gathered three times from DIBELS, text level read- and consist of DIBELS and four AIMSWeb mea-
ing, fall writing sample, and four AIMSWeb measures: oral counting, number identification, missing
sures: oral counting, number identification, miss- numbers, and quantity discrimination. Tier 3 mea-
ing numbers, and quantity discrimination. Second- sures for grades one through six also occur weekly
grade students take the following assessments three and consist of four AIMSWeb assessments: oral
times during the year: DIBELS, Degrees of Reading reading fluency (ORF), MAZE, math, and written
Power (DRP), fall writing sample, and Monitoring expression.
Basic Skills Progress in math skills and computa-
tion. Assessments for students in Tier 1, grades three Assessment data used in decision making:
through six, are the same, occur three times per year, Special education
and consist of DIBELS, 4Sight Reading and Math Kindergarten through sixth-grade students in the
assessment, Degrees of Reading Power, fall writ- special education tier are assessed with CORE Pho-
ing sample, and Monitoring Basic Skills Progress in nics and Phonological Segmentation twice a year,
math skills and computation. reading comprehension oral retell once a month, and
Precision Teaching daily. In addition, kindergartners
Assessment data used in decision making: Tier 2 in special education are assessed with five AIM-
Assessment data for Tier 2 are collected more SWeb measures: written expression, oral counting,
frequently than for Tier 1 - either weekly (for stu- number identification, missing numbers, and quanti-
dents needing and receiving intensive support) or ty discrimination. Additional measures for students
monthly (for students needing and receiving strate- in grades one through six are four AIMSWeb assess-
gic, or supplemental, support). Kindergarten mea- ments: oral reading fluency, MAZE, math, and writ-
sures are DIBELS, letter identification, Concepts ten expression.
About Print, and fall writing sample. Tier 2 assess-
ments for grades one through six are the same as Using screening and progress monitoring
those for Tier 1, but they, as for the other assess- data
ments in Tier 2, occur either weekly or monthly All screening data are reviewed in late Septem-
rather than just three times per year. ber or early October at grade-level team meetings.
RTI Manual
Students are identified as “advanced/benchmark,” range on progress monitoring measures. A student

“strategic,” or “intensive” in reading and math. Stu- leaves Tier 2 and moves to Tier 3 when fall screen-
dents identified as strategic or intensive are those ing data indicate partial proficiency on all measures
students whose scores on screening measures fall of a skill area, i.e., all reading measures or all math
below the 25th percentile. Strategic and intensive measures, or when progress monitoring data remain
students move to Tier 2 instructional groupings below the aim line for five weeks.
(small groups), and the grade-level teachers devel-
op an intervention plan to address their needs. The Remaining in and moving from tier 3
progress of strategic students is monitored every For all grade levels, Tier 3 interventions con-
month; the progress of intensive students is moni- tinue for 10 to 20 weeks. If, after 10 weeks, a student
tored every week. Intensive students whose progress receiving Tier 3 interventions achieves the target in-
remains on or above the aim line remain at the Tier tervention goal, he or she will move to Tier 2. Stu-
2 level. Intensive students whose progress falls be- dents move back to Tier 1 upon achieving proficien-
low the aim line (student trend line is below the goal cy on Tier 2 progress monitoring measures. If, after
line) are moved to Tier 3, where they will receive 10 to 20 weeks of Tier 3 intervention, a student’s
Tier 3 interventions. After five weeks, students’ progress trend line continues to fall below the goal
progress monitoring graphs are reviewed to deter- line or if a positive response requires an intensity of
mine whether interventions or group structure need resources not available in general education, parent
to be refined. permission is sought to consider the student for spe-
cial education services.
Remaining in and moving from tier 2
Students at all grades may remain at the Tier Remaining in and moving from special
2 level until they achieve proficiency on progress education
monitoring measures or if their progress remains be- Students receive special education services until
low the aim line for five weeks. Students move from they are able to achieve the individualized criteria
Tier 2 back to Tier 1 if they score in the proficient established in the IEP.
Tualatin Elementary School

Tualatin, Oregon
(Spring 2006)

Tualatin Elementary School enrolls 522 students
in kindergarten through fifth grade, with three to

four classrooms per grade. Nearly 50 percent (260)
of the students receive free or reduced lunch. Sixty-
five students are served in special education (15 are 50%
identified as having a learning disability), and 160 31%
are English language learners (ELL).
Tualatin Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- 12%
Free/ Special ELL
Lunch
Effective Behavior and Instructional Total enrollment=522, K-5

Support (EBIS) organizing model
Tualatin Elementary uses a continuum of All students receive quality behavior and academic
school-wide instructional and positive behavior sup- instruction and support; all are screened for instruc-
port. Primary prevention systems are school- and tional needs in the fall, winter, and spring. Examples
classroom-wide for all students, staff, and settings. of data that are gathered three times a year include

DIBELS, Oregon State Assessments, and data in- Individualize Instruction Rule. When a student
volving attendance, behavior, and counseling refer- fails to progress after two consecutive small-group
rals. interventions, individual instruction begins.
About 20 percent of the students qualify for Refer for Special Education Evaluation Rule.
secondary prevention, which involves specialized When a student fails to progress after two consecu-
group systems for at-risk students. These students tive individually-designed interventions, the student
receive small-group interventions. About 5 percent is referred for special education evaluation.
of students qualify for tertiary prevention, which is
specialized individualized systems that are in place Progress monitoring and instructional
for students at high risk. Students in this group re- decision making
ceive further individualized interventions. Decisions about future instruction are based on
progress monitoring results:
Example structure • If the group intervention has been successful,
The EBIS Team meets weekly. Team members the student may no longer need small-group in-
include the school principal, counselor, literacy spe- struction.
cialist, special education teacher, ELL specialists, • If the intervention appears to be working for the
and classroom teacher representatives from each student, the intervention should be continued as
grade level. The team monitors all students who re- is.
ceive small-group and individual interventions. The • If the group intervention is not working for the
team also oversees RTI fidelity and makes referrals student, the intervention should be revised or re-
to special education. fined.
The EBS (Effective Behavior Support) Team • If the group intervention is highly unlikely to be
meets twice monthly to plan and implement school- successful for the student, a more individualized
wide supports. approach is needed.
Grade-level teams meet monthly. At each meet- An example: A young student named Daisy is
ing, team members use data to evaluate the core pro- participating in the general curriculum but is not do-
gram, plan initial interventions for the “20 percent ing well. The EBIS Team reviews Daisy’s screen-
group,” and monitor student progress. Grade-level ing data; from the data review, the team decides to
teams also report to the EBIS Team. place Daisy in a group intervention. Daisy does not
Content-area teams meet every month to recom- improve, and the EBIS Team designs an individual
mend curriculum and instructional improvements intervention for Daisy. Had Daisy improved with
across all content areas. the group intervention, she would have resumed the
Individual Student Case Management imple- general program.
ments intensive interventions and monitors student Because Daisy continues to show no improve-
progress within the RTI process. ment with the first individual intervention, the EBIS
Team designs a second individual intervention for
Decision rules her. Had Daisy shown good improvement with the
Eighty Percent Decision Rule. If less than 80 first individual intervention, the team would deter-
percent of the Tualatin students are meeting bench- mine whether (1) other factors are suspected as the
marks, Tualatin staff review the core program(s). cause for her poor response to general and group in-
Twenty Percent Decision Rule. Students below struction or (2) the individual intervention needed
the 20th percentile in academic skills or with chron- to be given at such an intense level that a learning
ic behavior needs (more than five absences or more disability might be suspected. In the latter case, a
than three counseling or discipline referrals in a 30- special education referral is initiated.
day period) are placed in small-group instruction. Daisy still does not show improvement when
Change Small Group or Individual Intervention she is given instruction with a second individual in-
Rule. When progress data are below the aim line tervention. At this point, a special education referral
on three consecutive days, or when six data points is initiated.
produce a flat or decreasing trend line, school staff
change the intervention.

RTI Manual
Parent Involvement
Dalton Gardens, Idaho
(Spring 2006)

Dalton Gardens Elementary School’s enrollment
consists of 411 students in kindergarten through

fifth grade. Of those students, 55 percent are male. 93%
The number of classes for each grade is as follows:

kindergarten–two; first grade–two; second grade– 55% 45%
three; third grade–three; fourth grade–three; and
fifth grade–two. Nineteen percent of the students are 19%
eligible for free or reduced lunch. Ninety-three per- 7% 3% < 1%
cent of the students are Caucasian (not Hispanic), Cauca- Asian, Boys Girls Free/ Special ELL
with the remaining 7 percent being nearly equally sion Hispanic, Reduced Education (n=1)
African- Lunch
represented by Asian, Hispanic, and African-Ameri- American
can students. Fifteen students are served in special Total enrollment=411, K-5
education, and one student is an English language
learner (ELL).
Dalton Gardens Elementary’s responsiveness- terms or acronyms used that the parents may not un-
to-intervention model uses the following structure: derstand.
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education.
Ensuring that parents are involved in all
Ensuring that parents feel welcome and phases of the rti process and receive active
comfortable in the school setting support for participation at school and at
Parents of students with an intervention plan (I- home
plan) are involved from the initial I-plan meeting. School staff members are aware that parents of-
Before this meeting, the classroom teacher makes ten have unique insights about their child’s strengths
the initial contact with the parents. The contact may and weaknesses and are frequently eager to help
be by phone or at a parent-teacher conference. Just with interventions at home. When parents offer to
before the meeting, the classroom teacher meets do interventions at home with their child, the par-
the parents by the school office, assists them with ents are noted on the I-plan as interventionists. Dal-
checking in, and gives them a brief overview of how ton Gardens has had parents come to the school to
the meeting is expected to go and who will attend. volunteer so they could observe the interventions in
The Dalton Gardens Responsiveness to Intervention place and help with other students’ interventions.
(RTI) Team attends these meetings. Members of Dalton Gardens staff also give parents ideas and
the RTI Team include the principal, counselor, psy- materials that they can use at home – for example,
chologist, speech-language pathologist (if needed), flash cards, reading passages with which their child
general education representative (Dalton Gardens can practice fluency, grammar worksheets, etc. If a
has one primary representative and one intermediate parent suggests a certain intervention, Dalton Gar-
representative), special education teacher, and refer- dens staff members are open to considering the in-
ring teacher. tervention if it is something that can be provided by
At the beginning of the meeting, formal intro- the staff. When parents have a suggestion, it is often
ductions are conducted by the meeting facilitator, something they would like to do at home.
usually the principal. The classroom teacher then Parents are invited to all meetings about their
presents information about the student to the par- child, although Dalton Gardens staff members do
ents and to the team members. During the meeting, meet without parents if they are unwilling to attend.
team members try to be “jargon-busters” if there are
Parental notification meeting to discuss the problem and the next step.
Included in a student’s I-plan is a description of The child’s classroom teacher invites parents to all
the child’s problem, clear and unambiguous docu- meetings.
mentation about the child’s difficulties, a written Dalton Gardens Elementary distributes a survey
description of the specific intervention(s), clearly to families each March to solicit feedback from par-
stated intervention goal(s), and a long-range time- ents about all the school programs, including RTI.
line for the plan and its implementation. (Student
timelines can vary widely.) Every nine weeks, Dal- Progress data sent frequently to parents
ton Gardens RTI Team members meet to discuss Progress monitoring data are usually sent home
students with I-plans and to decide to discontinue weekly, if parents request it. Many parents trust
the I-plan (because goals have been met), continue that school staff will keep them informed if there
current interventions, change the interventions, or is a problem. Many students who are showing good
refer the student to special education. Parents are progress on their graphs ask to take a copy home to
invited to attend these meetings. show their families.
Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the Written materials to inform parents of
child’s plan, implementation, and timeline the right to ask for a special education
Dalton Gardens staff members have found that, evaluation at any time
because the parents are so impressed with the RTI Parents are not given any written information
and I-plan process and because of the willingness of formally, but during past meetings, parents have
the team to do whatever it takes to help their child, asked for testing. In these cases, the special educa-
parents do not have many complaints and it is easy tion teacher steps in with the appropriate paperwork
to reach a mutual agreement. If parents do have con- for parents to read and sign. If a parent asks for test-
cerns, the school staff address them immediately ing during a meeting when the special education
and try to work with parents to make satisfactory teacher is not present and the paperwork is not avail-
changes. able, a meeting will be scheduled for a later time to
handle the paperwork necessary for proceeding with
Frequent and consistent parent-staff the testing.
communication
Dalton Gardens staff inform parents about RTI Practices by school staff to ensure that
through presentations at Parent-Teacher Association parents view the implementation of due
meetings and through the school newsletter. At PTA process procedures and protections as timely,
meetings, school staff give a brief overview of RTI adequate, and fair
that includes basic information about RTI and the The special education teacher is very conscien-
RTI process. The principal sends information about tious about giving parents all the paperwork and ma-
RTI to parents several times a year. terials at the appropriate time. All staff members are
Follow-up meetings focused on student prog- willing to stop a meeting and reconvene at another
ress occur every nine weeks. If a problem comes up time to take the appropriate steps for a student.
between meeting times, staff will call an emergency

RTI Manual

Pella, Iowa
(Spring 2006)
Overview and demographics Jefferson Elementary School

Jefferson Elementary School has a total enroll-
ment of 500 students, with two sections each of kin-

95%
dergarten through third grade and six sections each
of fourth and fifth grades. Nearly equal numbers of
girls and boys attend the school. About 14 percent 50% 50%
of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch,
and about 6.6 percent are served in special educa- 14%
tion. Five percent of the students are minority stu- 5% 6.6% 1%
dents, 95 percent are Caucasian, and six students are Cauca- Minority
sian
Boys Girls Free/ Special
Reduced Education
ELL
(n=6)
English language learners (ELL). Lunch
Jefferson Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- Total enrollment=500, K-5

Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, and special education. lected, who will collect the data, when and how
often data will be collected, and materials used to
Ensuring that parents feel welcome and collect the data); and the plan for using the data for
comfortable in the school setting decision making (how often the data will be used,
Jefferson Elementary provides opportunities for who will examine the data, and indicators of a need-
parents to visit the school and to meet the teachers ed instructional change). At the end of the Interven-
during an open house and orientation sessions. Jef- tion Plan form is a table for recording instructional
ferson Elementary also offers the following volun- procedures, materials/arrangements, number of ses-
teer opportunities for parents: the “literacy army,” in sions per week and length of time per session, indi-
which parents serve as interventionists; fluency/ac- viduals responsible, and follow-up notes.
curacy screening volunteers, in which parent volun- Schools in the Pella Community School District
teers help conduct fluency/accuracy screenings four (Jefferson Elementary’s district) use a Reading Plus
times per year; and classroom volunteers, in which Partnership Pledge (see page 5.19). This agreement
parent volunteers assist students in the classroom in is a pledge among students, parents, teachers, para-
a variety of ways. professionals, and principals to help students reach
The school encourages teachers to contact par- their highest educational objectives. All parties
ents for positive issues as well as negative ones. pledge to work together to accomplish the terms of
E-mail is used as a communication mechanism, this contract and strive for academic success.
and parents are constantly in and out of the build-
ing. When arranging for Student Assistance Team Parental notification
(SAT) meetings, the classroom teacher, rather than The classroom teacher initially notifies parents
the principal or SAT coordinator, contacts the par- that school staff will be discussing their child at a
ents. School staff believe this is less threatening be- SAT meeting. The team includes the general edu-
cause parents are more familiar with the classroom cation teacher, at-risk coordinator, remedial reading
teacher. teacher, principal, and parents. The teacher notifies
the parents in person or contacts them by phone,
Ensuring that parents are involved in all phases written note, or e-mail. The teacher submits a form
of the rti process and receive active support for to the SAT coordinator that lists the concerns about
participation at school and at home the child and provides current existing data. (This
Jefferson Elementary has an Intervention Plan form can be shared with the parent but is not always
form for teachers to use and send home to parents. given to them.) During the meeting, the coordina-
This form includes the name of student; the area of tor takes notes about the discussion, which includes
concern; the grade-level satisfactory progress range; necessary accommodations and matching instruc-
data collection procedures (what data will be col- tional needs to interventions, and at the end of the

The Reading Plus Partnership Pledge
As a student I promise to...

• attend school every day.
• work hard to do my best in class and on school work.
• respect and cooperate with other students and adults.
• do the homework assigned to me each night.
• know and obey all school and class rules.
• ask my teachers, parents, and others for help when I have a problem I cannot solve myself.
As a parent I promise to...

• have high expectations for my child and talk about those expectations.
• help my child attend school and be on time.
• find a quiet place for school work and make sure work is done nightly.
• help my child learn to resolve conflicts in positive ways.
• read all communication sent home by teachers and school staff and to work with staff to support
and challenge my child.
• help my child get adequate rest and nutrition so he or she can come to school ready to learn.
As a teacher I promise to...

• show that I care about all students.
• expect students to be ready and willing to learn.
• have high expectations for myself, students, and other staff, and clearly communicate those ex-
pectations.
• communicate and work with families to support students’ learning.
• provide a safe and caring environment for learning.
• expect respect and support from students, families, other staff, and administration.
• ask for assistance from staff and administration in removing barriers which prevent me from do-
ing my best for students.
As a principal I promise to...

• create a welcoming environment for students and parents.
• communicate the school’s mission and goals to students and parents.
• maintain a positive and safe learning environment.
• reinforce the partnership between parents, students, and staff members.
• promote and foster high standards of academic achievement and behavior.
meeting, writes the plan. (Again, this is not always ment a teacher is concerned and begins trying Level
shared with parents but can be shared.) All decisions 1 classroom interventions. This communication
for placement in remedial interventions are made lasts throughout the process and, with some parents,
with parental input and consent. might even evolve into daily contact. At the SAT
meeting, the team usually sets a follow-up time to
Frequent and consistent parent-staff meet and discuss the specific data gathered during
communication the intervention.
Jefferson Elementary asks teachers to commu- Jefferson Elementary staff members also en-
nicate with parents whenever they have concerns courage parents to contact the school if they have
about a child so that contact takes place not only concerns. Both parents and teachers can initiate an
at parent-teacher conferences but also from the mo- SAT meeting. Parents are invited to be a part of the

RTI Manual
SAT meetings, during which many of the interven- Written materials to inform parents of
tions are planned. the right to ask for a special education
evaluation at any time
Progress data sent frequently to parents The Area Education Agency (AEA) has a par-
Progress data are routinely sent to the parents at ent information booklet that is shared with parents
report-card times. In addition, school staff share in- when Jefferson Elementary initiates conversation
tervention data with the parents at the SAT meeting about special education and evaluation. This infor-
or, if requested or needed, progress data are shared mation is accessible to any parent, but the school
with parents during the intervention. (Some parents does not give it to all parents.
request more information than others.)
Practices by school staff to ensure that
Active support for parent participation at parents view the implementation of due
school and at home process procedures and protections as timely,
Jefferson Elementary encourages parents to be adequate, and fair
active participants in their child’s education. At Jef- School staff at Jefferson Elementary try to be
ferson, the parental involvement is good; however, honest and open with parents about what is happen-
with some students, school staff would like to have ing and explain why. Parents and staff sometimes
the parents more involved. think that the process takes too long and would like
to have it move more quickly even though that is not
Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the always possible. School staff have found that if they
child’s plan, implementation, and timeline collect the appropriate data early, it is sometimes
When the SAT process moves into the evalua- easier to move more quickly later.
tion stage, formal paperwork is completed. Parents
receive a copy of these papers and sign consent
forms.

Tualatin, Oregon
(Spring 2006)

Tualatin Elementary School enrolls 522 students
in kindergarten through fifth grade, with three to

four classrooms per grade. Nearly 50 percent (260)
of the students receive free or reduced lunch. Sixty-
five students are served in special education (15 are 50%
identified as having a learning disability), and 160 31%
are English language learners (ELL).
Tualatin Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- 12%
Free/ Special ELL
Lunch
Ensuring that parents feel welcome and Total enrollment=522, K-5

comfortable in the school setting
Parents receive multiple newsletters—some de Mayo, One-Minute Reading Training, Summer
monthly and others weekly. Some newsletters fea- Reading, ELL, etc. In addition, parents are invited
ture school-wide news; others focus on classroom or to volunteer in classrooms.
departmental issues, such as ELL and Title I. Most written communication with parents is
The school provides a variety of parent nights: translated into Spanish; parent nights and confer-
Back-to-School, Kindergarten Round-Up, Cinco ences are presented in Spanish and English; and one

of the four secretaries in the school’s administrative Frequent and consistent parent-staff
office speaks Spanish. communication
School staff make home visits, and classroom
Ensuring that parents are involved in all teachers make home visits, place telephone calls to
phases of the rti process and receive active student homes, and have parent conferences to ex-
support for participation at school and at plain the interventions and to review progress. Par-
home ents are on the site council to help create the school-
Parents receive DIBELS scores and Title I no- wide strategic plan, are involved in the PTA, and
tification by mail. The Title I interventions are dis- have input on the Title I compact and the program
cussed at parent night (with parent training), and the plan.
school counselor invites parents to the school for
data review or for a parent interview at the various Progress data sent frequently to parents
individual problem-solving stages. Parents also re- Progress data are sent to parents at the end of
ceive support through home visits, newsletters, and each trimester. For those students in the EBIS pro-
telephone calls. cess, progress data are sent to parents more fre-
quently.
Parental notification
Tualatin Elementary has clearly specified times Written materials to inform parents of
when parents are notified: the right to ask for a special education
1. When a child is not doing well in the general evaluation at any time
curriculum and the Effective Behavior and The Tualatin District Rights and Responsibili-
Instructional Support (EBIS) Team reviews ties Handbook contains written information address-
screening data and places the student in a group ing the rights of parents to request a special evalu-
intervention ation any time. Advertisements also are placed in
2. When the EBIS Team places a student in a sec- local newspapers informing parents and community
ond group intervention members about agencies they can contact if they
3. When the EBIS Team designs an individual in- suspect a child has a disability.
tervention for the student
4. When special education referral is initiated. Par- Practices by school staff to ensure that
ents are continually informed about the plan and parents view the implementation of due
its implementation. process procedures and protections as timely,
adequate, and fair
Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the The principal, the literacy specialists, or special
child’s plan, implementation, and timeline education teachers explain due process rights to par-
Parents rely on teachers’ professional expertise ents. In addition, the school mails a parents’ rights
to determine the appropriate curriculum and the handbook to parents before meetings.
length and frequency of the interventions. Tualatin
Elementary uses district decision rules to determine
the duration of the interventions.

RTI Manual
Resource List: School Examples
4Sight Reading and Math (Success for All early age, building on emergent literacy that starts
Foundation) before formal schooling. Additional information can
http://www.successforall.net/ayp/4sight.htm be obtained from the author’s book Concepts about
4Sight assessments are one-hour tests that have ex- Print: What Have Children Learned about the Way
actly the same formats, coverage, look, and feel as We Print Language? Published by Heinemann.
individual state reading and math assessments. They
produce overall scores predictive of students’ scores CORE Phonics and Phonological Segmentation
on state assessments. (Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc.)
http://corelearn.com/
AIMSweb (Edformation, Inc.) CORE works collaboratively with educators to sup-
http://www.aimsweb.com/products/systems/pro_ port literacy achievement growth for all students.
complete/description.php CORE’s literacy implementation support services
AIMSweb Pro distributes a variety of packaged Cur- and products help build capacity for effective in-
riculum-Based Measurement (CBM) testing materi- struction by laying a foundation of research-based
als and web-based software to support a three-tier knowledge, supporting the use of proven tools, and
progress monitoring and responsiveness-to-interven- developing literacy leadership.
tion system in the areas of language arts, math, and
reading. Corrective Reading (SRA/McGraw Hill)
http://www.sra4kids.com
American Federation of Teachers Corrective Reading provides intensive interven-
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/ tion for students in fourth through 12th grade who
remedial.pdf are reading one or more years below grade level.
Building on the Best, Learning from What Works: This program delivers tightly sequenced, carefully
Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Pro- planned lessons that give struggling students the
grams. The purpose of the series is to promote high structure and practice necessary to become skilled,
standards, effectiveness, replicability, and support fluent readers and better learners.
structures as criteria for promising reading programs.
The five programs featured in the report are research- Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Program (TASA
based: Direct Instruction, Early Steps, Exemplary Literacy Online)
Center for Reading Instruction, Lindamood-Bell, http://www.tasaliteracy.com/drp/drp-main.html
and Reading Recovery. The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Program is
the basis of a line of reading comprehension tests for
Basic Reading Inventory (Kendall/Hunt students in first through 12th grade and beyond. The
Publishing Company) tests are criterion-referenced and allow precise track-
http://www.kendallhunt.com/index.cfm ing of a student’s reading development over time.
Basic Reading Inventory, by Jerry L. Johns, is an
early literacy assessment for pre-primary through Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (Riverside/
12th grade. Each book contains multimedia materials Houghton Mifflin)
demonstrating administration of a reading inventory http//:www.riverpub.com/
developed for use by classroom teachers, students in The Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR) is a
pre-service education, teachers taking introductory criterion-referenced reading test developed by F.G.
and advanced reading courses, reading specialists, Roswell, J.S. Chall, M.E. Curtis, and G. Kearns. Its
and others who are interested in in-service work in purpose is to assess individual student achievement
reading assessment. in print awareness, phonological awareness, letters
and sounds, word recognition, word analysis, oral
Concepts About Print (CAP) (Marie M. Clay) reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading compre-
Coined by New Zealand educator Marie Clay, con- hension, spelling, and word meaning. It is adminis-
cepts about print (CAP) refers to what emergent read- tered on an as-needed basis to selected students in
ers need to understand about how printed language kindergarten through 12th grade (ages 5 to adult)
works and how it represents language. Successful who are not making progress in their reading inter-
beginning readers develop concepts about print at an ventions.

DIBELS (University of Oregon) • Harcourt Holistic Assessment Books provide au-

http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ thentic literature for assessment of students’ appli-
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy cation of reading, writing skills, and strategies.
Skills (DIBELS) are a set of standardized, individu-
• Harcourt Trophies Intervention includes materials
ally administered measures of early literacy devel-
(Intervention Resource Kits, Readers, Teacher’s
opment designed to be short (one minute) fluency
Guides, Practice Books, Skill Cards, etc.) for com-
measures used to regularly monitor the development
prehensive teaching support and supplemental in-
of pre-reading and early reading skills.
struction.
Earobics (Cognitive Concepts Inc.) • Harcourt Holistic Assessment uses the Diagnostic
http://www.earobics.com/ Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) to as-
Earobics provides early literacy skill training by sess students’ knowledge of speech and language
teaching the phonological awareness, listening, and that are non-contrastive (i.e., common across vari-
introductory phonics skills required for learning to eties of American English so they are less likely to
read and spell. lead to misidentification).
Fox in a Box (CTB/ McGraw-Hill) Houghton Mifflin Reading Series (Houghton

http://www.ctb.com/ Mifflin)
Fox in a Box is an early literacy assessment that mea- http://www.hmco.com/products/products_elementary.
sures children’s skills twice yearly from kindergarten html
through second grade. It provides diagnostic infor- The Houghton Mifflin Reading Series builds fluency,
mation of selected skills in four learning strands: extends key themes and concepts across curriculum
phonemic awareness, phonics, reading/oral expres- areas, and provides practice and the application of
sion, and listening/writing. skills and strategies.
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Assessment Idaho Reading Indicator (Idaho Department of

(Riverside Publishing) Education)
http://riverpub.com/products/gmrt/index.html http://www.sde.state.id.us/IRI/
The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Assessment is a The Idaho Reading Indicator tests for fluency and
group-administered reading survey test used to as- accuracy of a student’s reading. It is the single state-
sess student achievement in reading. wide test specified by the Idaho state board of educa-
tion, and the state department of education ensures
Great Leaps (Diarmuid, Inc.) that testing takes place twice a year in kindergarten
http://www.greatleaps.com/ through third grade.
Great Leaps Reading uses instructional tactics with
motivators to remediate a variety of reading prob- Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (Idaho
lems. The program is divided into three major areas: Department of Education)
Phonics—developing and mastering essential sight- http://www.sde.state.id.us/Dept/testreports.asp
sound relationships or sound awareness skills; Sight Idaho’s comprehensive assessment system begins
Phrases—mastering sight words while developing with kindergarten and continues through high school.
and improving focusing skills; and Reading Flu- The focus of the state assessment program is primar-
ency—using age-appropriate stories specifically de- ily on math, reading, and language usage skills.
signed to build reading fluency, reading motivation,
and proper intonation. Iowa Test of Basic Skills (University of Iowa)
http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/itbs/index.htm
Harcourt School Publishers The Iowa Test of Basic Skills is a voluntary, non-
http://www.harcourt.com/ profit cooperative program for kindergarten through
Harcourt School Publishers is an elementary school eighth grade provided as a service to the schools of
publisher that develops, publishes, and markets text- Iowa by the College of Education of the University
books, electronic/online material, and related in- of Iowa.
structional materials for school or home use.
• The Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency Assessment
offers passages used by staff to measure and track
students’ oral reading rates and accuracy through-
out the year.

RTI Manual
Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading Oregon State Assessments (OSA) (Office
and Spelling (LETRS) (Sopris West) of Assessment in the Oregon Department of
http://www.sopriswest.com/ Education)
This professional development program provides http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=169
reading coaches, specialists, and teachers with a Oregon’s assessments are used to show how well
comprehensive, practical understanding of how their individual students have mastered Oregon standards
students learn to read, write, and spell—and how and to demonstrate the effectiveness of schools and
they can use this understanding to improve and fo- districts in preparing students to meet standards.
cus instruction. Mastery is measured in three general ways: knowl-
edge and skill tests, on-demand state performance
Letter Sound Fluency Test (Vanderbilt assessments, and classroom work samples.
University)
Copies can be order from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)
The Letter Sound Fluency Test was developed by (Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Research on
Doug and Lynn Fuchs to assess a student’s capacity to Human Development)
translate letters into sounds fluently: a student has one http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/
minute to say the sounds for the 26 letters. The test PALS Reading and PALS Math enable classroom
takes five minutes to administer and was developed teachers to accommodate diverse learners and help
for use with kindergarteners through first-graders. a large proportion of these students achieve success.
PALS Reading and PALS Math have been approved
Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test (MIALT) by the U.S. Department of Education’s Program Ef-
(Iowa Department of Education) fectiveness Panel for inclusion in the National Diffu-
http://www.state.ia.us/educate/index.html sion Network on effective educational practices.
The Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test is a criterion-
referenced test, meaning that it measures knowledge Precision Teaching (PT) (concept by Ogden
within an established set of standards. Given each Lindsley)
year in the fall and in the spring, the MIALT is help- Precision Teaching is a concept of basing educational
ful in assessing a student’s progress toward identified decisions on changes in continuous self-monitored
standards. performance results that are displayed on charts.
Additional information about the concept can be
Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (MBSP) (ProEd, Inc.) found in the following resources:
http://www.proedinc.com/ • Lindsley, O.R. (1992). Precision teaching: Dis-
Developed at Vanderbilt University by Lynn Fuchs, coveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior
Carol Hamlett, and Douglas Fuchs, the Monitoring Analysis, 25, 51-57.
Basic Skills Progress is a computer program that au- • Lindsley, O.R. (1990). Precision teaching: By
tomatically conducts curriculum-based measurement teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Chil-
and monitoring of student progress in reading, math dren, 22(3), 10-15.
computation, and math concepts and applications. • West, R.P., & Young, K.R. (1992). Precision teach-
Students receive immediate feedback on their prog- ing. In R.P. West & L.A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Designs
ress, and teachers receive individual and class-wide for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skin-
reports to help them develop more effective instruc- ner (pp. 113-146). Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.
tion. MBSP unit options include basic reading, basic • White O.R. (1986). Precision teaching—Precision
math computation, and basic math concepts and ap- learning. Exceptional Children, 52, 522-534.
plications.
Quick Reads (Pearson Learning Group’s Modern
Open Court (SRA/McGraw Hill) Curriculum Press)
http://www.sra4kids.com/ http://www.quickreads.org/
Open Court Reading is a research-based curricu- QuickReads are short texts to be read quickly and
lum grounded in systematic, explicit instruction of with meaning. The QuickReads program consists of
phonemic awareness, phonics and word knowledge, three levels: B, C, and D. These texts support auto-
comprehension skills and strategies, inquiry skills maticity with the high-frequency words and phonics/
and strategies, and writing and language arts skills syllabic patterns needed to be a successful reader at a
and strategies. particular grade level.

Read Naturally (Read Naturally, Inc.) The Six-Minute Solution: A Fluency Program
http://www.readnaturally.com/ (Sopris West)
Students work with the Read Naturally stories on http://www.sopriswest.com/
paper and read along to fluent recordings of the sto- The Six-Minute Solution is a research-based way to
ries on cassettes or audio CDs. Reading along is the build students’ reading fluency in six minutes a day.
teacher modeling step, which helps students learn It can be use as a complement to any reading curricu-
new words and encourages proper pronunciation, lum and as an intervention program. Students do re-
expression, and phrasing. peated readings of one-minute nonfiction passages as
their same-level partners note the number of words
Read Well (Sopris West) read correctly.
http://www.sopriswest.com/
Read Well is a validated, research-based and data- SRA Reading Mastery (SRA/McGraw-Hill)
driven core reading curriculum that teaches students http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/readingmastery.htm
the important building blocks of literacy while pro- Reading Mastery helps students develop strategies
viding the foundation and skills to develop lifelong for reading and understanding through the use of a
readers. It is designed to generate quantitative learn- synthetic phonics approach. Its use has proven to re-
ing gains for all students, with struggling students duce the prevalence of reading problems and elevate
showing the most substantial growth by combining the reading skills of at-risk children well into the av-
explicit, systematic instruction, rich themes and con- erage range.
tent, and structured learning activities.
Wilson Reading (Wilson Language Training)
REWARDS (Sopris West) http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/
http://www.sopriswest.com/ The Wilson Reading System is a research-based
The REWARDS reading intervention program is a reading and writing program. It is a complete cur-
validated, research-based program that can be used riculum for teaching decoding and encoding (spell-
as an effective intervention in general and special ed- ing), beginning with phoneme segmentation.
ucation, remedial reading, summer school, and after-
school programs. The program improves decoding, Write Well (Sopris West)
fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, content-area http://www.sopriswest.com/
reading and writing, and test-taking abilities. Write Well provides daily dictation lessons for teach-
ing students how to translate spoken into written
Road to the Code (Brookes) English and helps them master the conventions of
http://www.brookespublishing.com sentence writing. In 15 to 20 minutes per day, these
Road to the Code is an 11-week program for teach- field-tested methods can be incorporated into Read
ing phonemic awareness and letter sound correspon- Well instruction.
dence to kindergartners and first-graders who are
having difficulty with their early literacy skills.

RTI Manual
Part Two
Student Case Studies
In the following examples, we highlight data from individual elementary-school students

who have received early reading (and limited math) interventions through a multi-tiered
RTI service-delivery model. These data are from real students in real-world circumstances;
consequently, the information collected, as well as the data collection process, reflect varia-
tions initiated by the students’ respective school and the unique characteristics of individ-
ual students. We have altered the names and other uniquely identifying information about
student characteristics for confidentiality purposes.
Case Study: Bryanna

Reading: Third Grade (2005 – 2006)
Bryanna is an 8-year-old, Caucasian female. She is days a week, with Scholastic Literacy Place. The
in third grade and has not been retained. class is split into smaller reading groups, and Bry-
anna is in a reading group of six students.
Third Grade (2005 – 2006) Tier 1 Screening. The school administered DI-
Tier 1 BELS in August 2005 and again in December 2005.
Bryanna is in a general education class of 17 Table 5.1 shows Bryanna’s scores compared to the
students. Her general education (Tier 1) reading in- established cut scores.
struction takes place for 90 minutes each day, five
Table 5.1. Bryanna’s Tier 1 Screening Scores

Assessment Bryanna’s Scores Some Risk Cut Score
DIBELS
FALL ORF 41 < 77
FALL RTF 17 < 38
MID-YEAR ORF 64 < 92
MID-YEAR RTF 44 < 46
DIBELS Scoring is as follows:
• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) = number of correct words per minute from the passage
• DIBELS Retell Fluency (RTF) is intended to provide a comprehension check for the DIBELS ORF assessment

Behavior. This school uses a district behavior • Bryanna is also being tutored for 50 minutes
discipline form to gather school-wide behavior data. twice a week. She is in a group with six other
No behavior concerns were noted for Bryanna. students and is working on Balanced Literacy
using non-fiction readers.
Tier 2 Tier 2 progress monitoring. Table 5.2 shows
Tier 2 interventions. Bryanna began receiving Bryanna’s progress monitoring scores for oral read-
Tier 2 interventions in second grade, and they con- ing fluency and retell fluency measures. The table
tinued into third grade, as follows: also notes the established cut scores for designating
• SRA Reading Mastery II and Lindamood Pho- a child as at some risk in these areas.
nemic Sequencing (LiPS) with the special edu-
cation teacher for 60 minutes each day, five days
a week.
Table 5.2. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and Retell Fluency (RTF)
Bryanna’s ORF At Some Risk Bryanna’s RTF At Some Risk
Date
Scores ORF Cut Scores Scores RTF Cut Scores
Sept. Week 1 41 < 77 17 < 38
Sept. Week 3 56 35
Oct. Week 1 47 16
Oct. Week 4 64 28
Nov. Week 2 62 32
Nov. Week 4 Absent Absent
Dec. Week 2 64 < 92 44 < 46
Jan. Week 2 88 9
Jan. Week 4 100 54
Feb. Week 1 73 0
End of year < 110 < 55
Math: Third Grade (2005 – 2006)
Third Grade (2005 – 2006) “at-risk” status is equivalent to the measure’s profi-
Tier 1 ciency level. Bryanna’s math score placed her in the
Bryanna is in a general education class of 17 stu- unsatisfactory range, therefore “at risk.”
dents for math. Her general education (Tier 1) math Quarterly assessments also are given at the end
instruction takes place for 60 minutes each day, five of each grading period. The “at risk” status is again
days a week, with Houghton-Mifflin Central. based on degree of mastery toward the standards that
Tier 1 screening. The school administered the are evaluated by the assessments. Bryanna placed in
Terra Nova screening measure in August to all the unsatisfactory and partial mastery range on quar-
third-grade students. The cut score used to designate terly assessments in October.

RTI Manual
Tier 2 Tier 2 progress monitoring. Progress monitor-

Tier 2 intervention. Bryanna is receiving small- ing consists of teacher observation and teacher-
group math problem solving instruction with the generated prompts. Data are collected on a weekly
special education teacher for 30 minutes a day, four basis. The cut score designation for inadequate re-
days each week. Seven other students are in this sponse is 80 percent accuracy. The following table
group. The curriculum includes Houghton Mifflin reports Bryanna’s quiz scores in relation to the 80
Math Central problem solving, Investigations, and percent accuracy criterion. Quizzes consist of five
Touch Math. problems.
Table 5.3 Math Problem Solving Quizzes 2005-2006 School Year

Quiz Date Score Inadequate response score
Oct. 21 0 < 80 percent
Nov. 4 40 < 80%
Nov. 18 60 < 80%
Dec. 2 60 < 80%
Dec. 16 20 < 80%
Jan. 13 60 < 80%
Jan. 27 0 < 80%
Disability And Eligibility Determination For interventions, she still needed to exhibit a discrep-
Tier 3 – Special Education ancy to be eligible with an SLD designation.
Bryanna was referred for a special education However, after looking at the scores, the team
evaluation due to inadequate response to interven- determined that her biggest skill deficits were in
tion. The evaluation employed discrepancy criteria the area of speech-language. Her Spoken Language
and language severity rating scales. Table 5.4, be- Quotient of 67 on the TOLD P:3 assessment was
ginning on page 5.29, lists all of the components and more than two standard deviations below the mean.
measures used in the comprehensive evaluation. This score qualified her for Tier 3 (special educa-
As a result of the evaluation, Bryanna did not tion) interventions in the area of speech-language.
qualify for special education services with an SLD/ The school is awaiting parental consent at an ini-
LD designation as school personnel had anticipated tial Individualized Education Program (IEP) meet-
she would. Although she did not respond to Tier 2 ing to begin Tier 3 (special education) services.

Table 5.4. Comprehensive Evaluation Components and Measures for SLD Determination (Bryanna)
Test/
Assessment/ Cut Score/
Component Meeting Type of Data or Score Comments
Procedure Criteria
Date
Multifaceted in Nature At IEP IEP Team IEP team determined that

meeting Decision Bryanna’s disability is in the
– 2/2/06 area of speech-language
Intellectual Ability 1-11-2006 WISC-IV Full Scale SS = 81* > 70
Aptitude-Achievement 11-28-2005 WJ-III SS < 68 to qualify as SLD Collaboration with classroom

Discrepancies Broad Reading = 92 performance data and RTI
Broad Math= 94
Broad Written Lang = 99
Intra-individual
Differences
Information or Language 11-29-2005 TOLD P:3 Spoken Language Quotient = 67 1½ standard deviations below Individual Skill Deficits
Processing Involvement the mean
Exclusionary At IEP IEP Team English acquisition and

Criteria meeting Decision instruction were not found to
2/2/06 be lacking
Behavioral and Academic 1-11-2006 BASC and BASC teacher ratings reflected attention and BASC and Conners’ scores Cognitive inattention and
Screening Conners’ learning problems in the at-risk range. All are not typically used to learning problems in the at-
other behavioral areas presented in the average qualify a student as PC risk range.
range. Adaptability and social skills were rated (SLD) unless they were in the
above average, presenting relative strengths. clinically significant range
Conners’ teacher ratings show elevated scores or the high end of the at-risk
for areas related to cognitive inattention. range for areas related to
Conners’ parent ratings reflect no areas of attention problems that may
concern; all scores fell within the average be a component of processing
ranges. The BASC parent ratings also reflected difficulties.
no areas of concern.
Appropriate Learning At the IEP IEP Team Determined to be appropriate IEP Team determined that
Experiences meeting Decision Bryanna has had access
2/2/06 to appropriate learning
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

experiences.
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
5.29
Test/
Assessment/ Cut Score/
Component Meeting Type of Data or Score Comments
Procedure Criteria
Date
Social Skills Deficits 1-11-2006 Social No significant concerns

RTI Manual
Developmental reported by parent.
5.30
History
Adaptive Behavior Vineland (as

needed)
Parents’ Role Ongoing Communication

and Parent
Contact Logs
Eligibility Decision and At IEP Eligibility

Professional Judgment meeting Criteria
2/2/06 Checklist**
Special Education Exit Progress toward

Criteria goals met
* Bryanna’s school uses state criteria of 70 or above for a learning disability (Perceptual Communicative Disability) as opposed to SLIC (Significant Limited Intellectual
Capacity). To qualify for SLIC, a student must have three measures—cognitive, educational achievement, and adaptive behavior—with scores of 70 or less.
** The speech-language checklist consists of selecting the area of speech-language impairment (i.e., expressive/receptive delay). Then, to qualify, that impairment must
cause a need for augmentative communication, substantial behavior problems due to communication, or interference with oral or written communication for academics.

Case Study: Jayden

Reading: Kindergarten (2003) – Second Grade (2006)
Jayden is an 8-year-old boy in second grade. He is series. The general education teacher gave read-
multiracial. He has never been retained but has con- ing instruction to the whole class and also to small
tinued, since kindergarten, to struggle with reading. groups. Seven students were in Jayden’s group.
The school administered the Early Screening
Kindergarten (2003–2004) Inventory (ESI-K) in August 2003 and administered
Tier 1 DIBELS in mid-September, mid-January, and at
In kindergarten, Jayden’s general education (Tier the end of the third week in April. Table 5.6 shows
1) reading instruction consisted of 120 minutes each Jayden’s scores compared to the established cut
day, five days a week, with the Harcourt Trophies scores.
Table 5.6. Jayden’s Tier 1 early Screening Inventory and DIBELS Scores
Assessment Jayden’s Scores At Risk Cut-off Score
ESI-K 28 <21
Fall DIBELS - ISF 28 <7
Fall DIBELS - LNF 5 <7
Mid-Year DIBELS - ISF 23 <25
Mid-Year DIBELS - LNF 7 <27
Mid-Year DIBELS – PSF 27 <18
Spring DIBELS - LNF 8 <40
Spring DIBELS - PSF 25 <35
Spring DIBELS – NWF 6 <25
The at-risk cut scores for these DIBELS assessments are determined at the state level.
Scoring for DIBELS is as follows:
• Initial Sound Fluency (ISF) = number of initial sounds correct in one minute
• Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) = number of letters named correctly in one minute.
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) = number of correct phonemes produced in one minute
• Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) = number of letter-sounds produced correctly in one minute.
Tier 2 Trophies Series, and instruction took place five days

In kindergarten, Jayden did not have an academ- a week for 120 minutes each day. Instruction was
ic improvement plan and thus did not have any Tier provided to the whole class (approximately 20 stu-
2 reading interventions. dents) and to small groups, with seven students in
Jayden’s group.
First Grade (2004–2005) Screening. During first grade, the school ad-
Tier 1 ministered DIBELS assessments to Jayden in mid-
In first grade, Jayden’s general education (Tier September, mid-January, and mid-April. Table 5.7
1) reading instruction was the same as in kindergar- on page 5.32 shows Jayden’s screening scores com-
ten. The general education teacher used the Harcourt pared to the established cut scores.

RTI Manual
Table 5.7. Jayden’s First-Grade Screening Scores

Assessment Jayden’s Scores At Risk Cut Score
Fall DIBELS - LNF 12 <37
Fall DIBELS - PSF 20 <35
Fall DIBELS - NWF 5 <24
Mid-Year DIBELS - PSF 42 <35
Mid-Year DIBELS – NWF 30 <50
Mid-Year Harcourt - ORF 18 CWPM/11 errors <55 (HORF)
Spring DIBELS - PSF 51 <35
Spring DIBELS - NWF 66 <50
Spring DIBELS - ORF 41 <60
At-risk cut scores for these DIBELS assessments are determined at the state level.
Scoring is as follows:
• Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) = number of letters named correctly in one minute
• Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) = number of letter-sounds produced correctly in one minute
• Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) = number of correct words per minute
School staff members decided that Jayden phonemic awareness, specifically letter sounds, with
needed Tier 2 interventions because his classroom Earobics and Exemplary Center for Reading Instruc-
performance was well below that of his peers and tion (ECRI) suggested as interventions; and phonics,
his fall DIBELS scores placed him in the “inten- specifically alphabet recognition, with ECRI, small
sive” group for his recommended instructional lev- group suggested as an intervention.
el. Jayden’s letter naming fluency (LNF) score of During the third nine-week period, concerns
12 letter names per minute and his nonsense word about letter sounds continued, although nonsense
fluency (NWF) score of 5 placed him in the “high word fluency had improved. Interventions were con-
risk” category. His phoneme segmentation score of tinued. Low scores in oral reading fluency produced
20 phonemes per minute fell in the “emerging” cat- concerns in this area, and ECRI, small group inter-
egory. (He should have reached the established level ventions were suggested. Jayden’s nonsense word
with a score of 35 by the end of kindergarten.) fluency continued to improve during the fourth nine-
week period and surpassed the goal score, but flu-
Tier 2 ency in oral reading remained a concern and ECRI,
Jayden began receiving Tier 2 instruction in the small-group intervention was continued.
fall of first grade. School personnel administered For 20 minutes each day, five days a week, the
Fox in a Box diagnostics to determine Jayden’s spe- general education teacher gave reading instruction
cific needs. to Jayden and four other students using the Harcourt
Fox in a Box was administered in October and Intervention with ECRI methodology. In addition,
analyzed the five areas of reading: phonemic aware- for 20 minutes a day, four days a week, a Title I as-
ness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehen- sistant gave reading instruction to Jayden and two to
sion. At this same time, an Elementary Reading four other students using the five-step lesson plan.
Academic Improvement Plan was developed. One day a week, the Title I assistant worked with
Areas of concern and interventions during the Jayden alone for 10 minutes.
second nine weeks of first grade were as follows: Progress monitoring for Tier 2. Table 5.8 shows
Jayden’s progress monitoring scores for Harcourt making limited progress, as measured by both his
Holistic Listening Comprehension measures. The class work and DIBELS screens. His DIBELS
table also lists the scores corresponding to mastery scores indicated that he finally did meet and sur-
and indicating potential risk. These measures were pass the benchmark of 35 on phoneme segmenta-
collected about every seven weeks. The school is tion fluency; however, Jayden should have obtained
currently evaluating this frequency with the hope this score by the end of kindergarten. His nonsense
that they will administer progress monitoring mea- word fluency score of 30 was at the bottom range of
sures for Tier 2 more frequently in the future. “moderate risk.” His oral reading fluency score of
School staff also monitored Jayden’s progress 18 words correct per minute with 11 errors was in
on the individual interventions and administered the the “high risk” category. These scores showed some
ECRI Mastery Test to assess his progress. Results of improvement but not enough to meet grade-level
these assessments are unavailable. expectations. The team decided he needed more as-
In January, the school decided that Jayden was sistance, so they moved on to Tier 3 interventions.
Table 5.8. Jayden’s Harcourt Holistic Listening Comprehension Progress Monitoring Scores
Harcourt Holistic At-Risk
Date Jayden’ Scores
Listening Comprehension Indicators
Book 1-1 November 100%
Book 1-2 December 90%
Mastery = 80%
Book 1-3 February 100%
At Risk = 60%
Book 1-4 April 50%
Book 1-5 May 80%
Tier 3 port Team set a goal of 80 percent correct for the

Due to Jayden’s continued low scores, the first- average of Jayden’s Earobics scores across time.
grade general education staff and members of the Jayden accomplished an average score of 73 per-
student support team gave Jayden Tier 3 instruction cent, which was below the target goal.
in addition to Tier 2 instruction. Tier 3 instruction Table 5.10 on page 5.34 shows Jayden’s prog-
included individual instruction with Earobics for 15 ress-monitoring scores for the sight word drill sand-
minutes a day for three days a week and a sight word wich activity and the established cut scores for in-
drill sandwich activity, which was used five to 10 dicating risk. The goal of the sight word drill is an
minutes a day, three times a week in a small group increase of two words per week.
of three students. Table 5.11 on page 5.34 shows Jayden’s oral
Progress was monitored weekly with Earobics reading fluency progress-monitoring scores. The
and every nine weeks for the sight word activity. goal for Jayden was to read 43 words correctly per
In addition, the reading strategy teacher used the minute with four errors. The expected rate of im-
AIMSweb Global Progress Monitoring Tool nearly provement was an increase of 1.86 words read cor-
every week to assess oral reading fluency. rectly per minute per week. The table shows Jayden’s
Table 5.9 shows Jayden’s progress monitoring average rate of improvement was 0.73 words read
scores using Earobics measures. The Student Sup- correctly per minute per week.
Table 5.9. Progress Monitoring for Earobics for 2004–2005

Date 11/29 12/06 12/13 12/20 1/03 1/24
Jayden’s Scores 60% 90% 60% 80% 70% 80%

RTI Manual
Table 5.10. Progress Monitoring—Sight Word Drill Sandwich Activity 2004 – 2005
Date 8/19 10/20 1/18
Jayden’s Scores 2 words 21 words 42 words
Cut Score 18 words 43 words
Table 5.11. Progress Monitoring for AIMSweb ORF for 2004 – 2005
Date 2/14 2/18 2/21 2/28 3/07 3/18 3/21 4/4 4/11 4/25
17 words read 14/6 20/10 20/8 16/8 27/9 19/10 19/8 25/8 23/5
Student correctly per
Score minute with
9 errors
The student support team evaluated Jayden’s limited to first grade (and have now been cut com-
intervention progress and found that the interven- pletely). Thus, the team decided to add Tier 4 inter-
tion addressing phonemic awareness using Earobics ventions to Jayden’s reading instruction. (See Dis-
showed limited effectiveness. Jayden did not meet ability and Eligibility Determination on page 5.35
his goal of an average of 80 percent correct across and Tier 4 – Special Education on page 5.36.)
time.
Jayden did meet his goal on the sight word in- Second Grade (2005–2006)
tervention. Tier 1
Based on research in oral reading fluency, the In second grade, Jayden’s general education
team set Jayden’s goal for increasing his oral reading (Tier 1) reading instruction continued to consist of
fluency rate by 1.86 words read correctly per minute the Harcourt Trophies Series for 120 minutes each
per week, which falls between a Realistic level (an day, five days a week. Instruction was provided to
increase of 1.5 words read correctly per minute per the whole class (approximately 20 students) and to
week) and an Ambitious level (an increase of 2.0 small groups (seven students). Seven students were
words read correctly per minute per week). How- in Jayden’s group.
ever, Jayden’s oral reading fluency global progress Screening. During second grade (current year),
monitoring scores showing an increase per week of the school administered Harcourt Oral Reading Flu-
0.73 words read correctly per minute was well be- ency (HORF) assessments to Jayden in September
low his target. and January. Table 5.12 shows Jayden’s scores com-
Based on a synthesis of data from prior assess- pared to the established cut scores.
ment in phonemic awareness and phonics (Fox in The school decided that Jayden needed Tier 2
a Box) and the intervention results above, the team interventions because he displayed classroom per-
determined that Jayden needed a more intensive and formance well below his peers and he did not meet
structured phonics-based program. The team noted his goals on his interventions. Jayden’s September
that many of the extra resources available to carry Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency screening data of 41
out such a program in first grade would not be avail- correct words per minute was below the cut score
able in second grade because Title V dollars were of 54.
Table 5.12. Jayden’s Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency Scores

Assessment Jayden’s Scores At Risk Cut Score
Sept HORF 41 correct words per minute < 54 correct words per minute
Jan HORF 71 correct words per minute < 78 correct words per minute

Tier 2 Harcourt Holistic comprehension scores were below

Again, as in first grade, school personnel ad- the cut score of 60 percent.
ministered Fox in a Box diagnostics to determine Table 5.13 shows Jayden’s progress monitoring
Jayden’s current specific needs. This is typical for scores on the Harcourt Holistic Comprehension as-
all students who will receive Tier 2 interventions. sessment and lists the at-risk indicator cut scores.
In Jayden’s 2005 and 2006 Elementary Reading These measures were collected about every seven
Academic Improvement Plan for the first nine weeks weeks. The school is currently evaluating this fre-
of second grade, school staff noted that fluency was quency with the hope that they will administer prog-
an area of concern; Quick Reads was suggested as ress monitoring measures for Tier 2 more frequently
an intervention. Other interventions named were in the future
Decodable Books (phonics), small group work (vo- Table 5.14 shows Jayden’s oral reading fluency
cabulary), and Harcourt Intervention/Level Readers progress monitoring scores. The goal for Jayden was
(comprehension). In addition, Jayden’s fall scores to read 90 words correctly per minute with nine er-
on Fox in a Box and STAR assessments indicated rors on second-grade standard progress monitoring
specific needs in the areas of spelling/decoding and passages. The expected weekly rate of improvement
speed/accuracy. Decodable Books, Quick Reads, was 2.05 words read correctly per minute. The table
and small-group work would continue as interven- shows Jayden’s average weekly rate of improvement
tions. Jayden met the goal for comprehension on the to be -5.00 words read correctly per minute.
Fox in a Box assessment, but his second-grade, fall
Table 5.13. Progress Monitoring For Tier 2 • Harcourt Holistic Comprehension

Date Jayden’ Scores At Risk Indicators
September 50%
October 59% Mastery = 80%
December 55% At Risk = 60%
February 86%
Date 1/16 1/30
Student 52 wcm / 42/5
Score 4 errors
Disability And Eligibility Determination involved an approach advocated by the Exemplary

November 2004: Jayden’s parents were notified Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI). This inter-
that the student support team would discuss Jayden’s vention was combined with the use of a Language
academic problems and consider potential solutions Master for sight word identification and “drill sand-
to those problems. wich” practice in which new words are mixed with
January 2005: The student support team met to known words, resulting in significant progress as
consider solutions to Jayden’s reading problem. measured against predetermined goals. However, a
February 2005: The student support team met closer look at phonemic awareness yielded a con-
to discuss student data. cern with reading at this level and resulted in the
March 2005: The student support team decided development of a second intervention involving a
that Jayden needed further evaluation. The school change in curriculum (to the Harcourt Intervention
psychologist will conduct a formal evaluation. Curriculum and Earobics), instruction (supplement-
Disability and eligibility determination was ing classroom instruction with computer-assisted
based in part upon Jayden’s response to interven- instruction), and environment (to a small-group set-
tions instituted during his first-grade year. First, a ting). Progress monitoring revealed inadequate re-
change in instructional method was undertaken and sponse to the intervention.
RTI Manual
The team also made note of the extraordinary Tier 4 - Special Education
amount of resources being used to generate this Jayden’s Special Education Reading Interven-
small amount of improvement. Many of the extra re- tion Curriculum includes Harcourt Intervention
sources available to this student in first grade would with added five-step research-based lesson planning
not be available in second grade because Title V Extensions in Reading series for comprehension for
dollars were limited to first grade at the time (as of 45 minutes per day, four days a week. Jayden’s gen-
March 2006, these funds were cut completely). eral education teacher and the exceptional education
Aware that the extra resources available to this teacher provide the instruction. Jayden’s instruc-
student in first grade would not be available in sec- tional group consists of two students.
ond grade and concerned about the minimal amount Special education – progress monitoring.
of improvement, the team asked for a psychoeduca- Jayden’s progress will be monitored every two
tional evaluation, including intellectual assessment weeks. Measures will be from all Tier 1 and Tier 2
(Differential Abilities Scales), academic ability as- assessments, AIMSweb ORF, and AIMSweb Maze.
sessment (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test), The at-risk cut scores for both the AIMSweb ORF
and cognitive processing assessment (Jordan Left- and Maze assessments are < 25 percent. Table 5.15
Right Reversal Test and Woodcock-Johnson Tests shows Jayden’s AIMSweb oral reading fluency
of Cognitive Development). Testing took place in scores. His January 16 score of 52 words read cor-
June, at the end of Jayden’s first-grade year. Based rectly per minute with four errors places him at the
upon current state requirements, the student was de- 25th percentile. The exceptional education team set
termined to have a specific learning disability and a goal to move Jayden closer to the 50th percentile.
entitled to receive appropriate exceptional student A target of 90 words read correctly per minute with
education services based upon a significant discrep- nine errors would put him slightly below the 50th
ancy between his measured intellectual ability and percentile. For second grade, an “ambitious” goal
his achievement scores with accompanying cogni- is to gain two words read correctly per minute per
tive processing deficits. See Table 5.16 beginning on week. Jayden’s goal was just slightly higher at 2.05
page 5.37 for a list of the components of the com- words read correctly per minute per week.
prehensive evaluation.
Date 1/16 1/23 1/30 2/06 2/13 2/20 2/22 3/01 3/08
52 words 53/4 42/5 58/4 72/4 67/1 68/1 65/2 73/3
correct per
Student
minute
Score
with 4
errors

Table 5.16. Comprehensive Evaluation Components and Measures for SLD Determination (Jayden)
Test or Analysis/
Cut-Off/
Component Meeting Assessment/Procedure Type of Data or Score Manipulation
Criteria
Date of Score Comments
11/9/04 Data from our process of reviews, interviews, Review of records, NA •To determine presence of other areas of
& observations identified reading as the area interviews with teacher & concern
Multifaceted of concern, ruling out the need for testing of student, observations
additional areas at this time; Math reported as a
strength by teacher
6/1/05 Differential Abilities Scale General Cognitive Ability > 70 •Check for scatter and rule out mental
Intellectual Ability SS = 118 handicap
•Collaboration with other data
Aptitude- 6/1/05 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Reading Comprehension > 1 sd below • To determine the discrepancy between
Edition SS = 107; Pseudoword intellectual ability and achievement
Achievement
Decoding SS = 99 ability measure • Also testing of limits and error analysis
Discrepancies
9/04 DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency 12 Letters CPM < 25 • To assist in determining the degree of
9/04 DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 20 Segments CPM < 10 disparity between student and same-age
9/04 DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency 5 Sounds CPM < 13 peers
10/04 Fox in a Box Level 1 Spelling Level 2 Established
Intra-individual
Alphabet identification criteria based on
Differences Level 2 Decoding number correct
Level 2 Sight Word ID
Information or 6/1/05 Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities, Processing Speed Cluster > 1 sd below • Analysis of raw data and observations of
Third Edition SS = 90 intellectual test behaviors
Language Processing
ability measure • Noted similar response patterns on
Involvement (118) achievement test
12/15/04 Observation, language screening, intellectual Gross indicators of Harcourt’s • Used to assess presence of indications of
6/1/05 assessment dysfunction (none PsychCorp processing deficits
observed); Clinical Screening
CNS (Central Evaluation of Language Test (CELF-
Nervous System) Fundamentals - 4 total test 4) criterion
Involvement score = 21; Differentiated for passage =
Abilities Scale (DAS) 16; DAS GIA
General Cognitive Ability standard score
(GCA) = 118 > 70

5.37
Test or Analysis/
Cut-Off/
Criteria
11/22/04 Sensory screenings Pass both areas at all Hearing indi- • Assess vision, hearing, and possible
11/09/04 Review of records levels cated at 25 db at language acquisition issues
RTI Manual
1000, 2000, and • No problems noted; English is first
5.38
Exclusionary Criteria 4000 Hz; language
Vision 20/20
at far and near
distance
11/09/04 Teacher Checklist Presence of strengths Strengths noted • Used to rule out other concerns/
checked contributing factors; checked for scatter
11/09/04 Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 2nd Ed. KBIT-2 SS > 70 • Non-verbal score much higher than verbal
Behavioral and (K-BIT 2) Composite SS = 103 on K-BIT 2
Verbal Composite SS =
Academic Screening
112; Nonverbal Composite
SS = 134
11/09/04 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test WIAT-II Discrepancies • Achievement scores consistent
(WIAT – II) Word Recog. SS = 95 among
Num. Op. SS=96 subtests within
Spelling SS = 96 instruments > 18
points
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency 12 Letters CPM < 25
DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 20 Segments CPM < 10
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency 5 Sounds CPM < 13
Fox in a Box Level 1 Spelling Established
Level 2 Alphabet criteria based on
identification number correct
Level 2 Decoding
Level 2 Sight Word ID

Test or Analysis/
Cut-Off/
Criteria
Reviewed Student participated in pre-k early intervention NA NA NA
1/11/05 programming due to speech impairment. Re-
ceived kindergarten and first-grade instruction
with progress monitoring using DIBELS three
times annually. Documentation of interventions
with observations to ensure fidelity of implemen-
Appropriate
tation supports the appropriateness of learning
Learning experiences. Student was monitored on an Aca-
Experiences demic Improvement Plan
2/15/05 Responsiveness-to-Intervention Level and slope of trend 3 data points • One intervention was successful in in-
line on sight word acquisi- below aim line creasing words identified correctly but did
tion and phonemic aware- not have a beneficial effect upon other indi-
ness assessments cators of reading achievement
Teacher Checklist Presence of strengths Missing skills • Used to rule out social skills deficits
Social Skills indicate a need • Missing skills not noted
Deficits for further
screening
Informal observation & teacher interview Anecdotal information Missing skills • Examination for indicators of need for
indicate a need further screening
Adaptive Behavior for further • Missing skills not noted
screening
Parents were involved in development/ NA NA NA
implementation of interventions and were
informed of outcomes and further team efforts to
enhance their child’s learning. They were notified
Parents’ Role and gave permission for assessment. As part
of the eligibility team, they agreed to eligibility
and placement and helped to develop goals and
objectives. They were informed of their due
process rights.

5.39
Test or Analysis/
Cut-Off/
Criteria
Team examination of all available data All available data, See comments • Comparison of available data with
including input from all – next column possible explanations for that data and with
RTI Manual
members of the team state-established criteria for eligibility
5.40
•Inadequate response to intervention,
adequate response to interventions only
Eligibility Decision with a level of intervention/support that
and Professional cannot be sustained in a general education
Judgment setting without outside support, and a
discrepancy of > 1 sd between the measure
of intellectual ability and both the academic
achievement score and a score of cognitive
processing that is assumed to be a major
contributing factor.
NA Recommendation of the IEP team based on one of Report card grades, Lack of success •To determine success in meeting IEP goals
the following criteria: regular classroom work in meeting IEP and functioning in the general curriculum
1. When the student has made sufficient samples, documentation goals and/or program
progress in meeting the goals of the IEP and of mastery of a sufficient functioning • Has not arrived at this place yet
has successfully completed a trial placement percentage of the required in the general
in the general curriculum in which the ability basic skills curriculum
to function adequately, considering intellectual program
level, has been demonstrated, or
Special Education 2. Where the student successfully completed a
Exit Criteria trial placement in the general curriculum program
in which the ability to function adequately,
considering intellectual level, has been
demonstrated, or
3. When the student demonstrates successful
achievement in the general curriculum without
support, or that the disability no longer interferes
with the student’s ability to function in the
educational program.
Does your model allow for SLD to co-exist with __MR? X E/BD? * sensory impairments? * motor impairments?
* Although a student with sensory or motor impairments may have a concurrent specific learning disability, the determination of the specific learning disability must rule
out the sensory or motor impairment as the exclusive explanation for the lack of educational achievement.

Case Study: Lauren

Reading: Third Grade (2004–2005)
and Fourth Grade (2005–2006)
Lauren is a 10-year-old Caucasian girl. She is in Tier 1 Screening – Reading. The Idaho Reading
third grade and has not been retained. Indicator (IRI) and the Idaho Standards Achieve-
ment Test (ISAT) are used to gather school-wide
Third Grade (2004–2005) screening measures/benchmarks for reading.
General Education - Tier 1 Lauren’s scores on these assessments are shown
Lauren’s third-grade teacher uses the Macmil- in Tables 5.17 and 5.18. Because Lauren scored be-
lan/McGraw-Hill reading program/series for 60 low grade level on the IRI and below basic profi-
minutes each day for reading instruction. Between ciency on the ISAT, school staff included Lauren in
16 and 20 students are in Lauren’s general education Tier 2 interventions.
reading group.
Table 5.17. Lauren’s Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) Scores

Cut Scores To Designate
Dates Lauren’s Scores
At Risk
9/21/04 2 (88/154) – near grade level 118
1/21/05 1 (115/188) - below grade level 156
5/11/05 1 (148/255) - below grade level 196
Table 5.18. Lauren’s Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) Scores

Cut Scores To Designate
Dates Lauren’s Scores
At Risk
Sept./Oct. 2004 166 Rash Unit (RIT) points – below basic ISAT proficiency
proficiency score is 193
April/May 2005 184 RIT points – below basic proficiency
Sept./Oct 2005 184 RIT points – below basic proficiency

RTI Manual
Tier 2 sessments using first-grade reading probes. Lauren’s

Tier 2 interventions. The classroom reading goal was to correctly read 86 words per minute. Be-
teacher spent 60 minutes each day of the week using cause Lauren had three data points below the aim
Phonics for Reading, Read Naturally, and Making line, school staff placed her in Tier 3 instruction. In
Words. Instruction was provided for a small group Tier 3, she received additional time with interven-
of five students. tions and was placed in a group of only two stu-
Tier 2 progress monitoring. Table 5.19 shows dents.
Lauren’s scores on DIBELS oral reading fluency as-
Table 5.19. Lauren’s Tier 2 Progress Monitoring DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Scores
Correct Words Per Fluency
Date Indicators of Risk
Minute Percent Accuracy
10/18/04 68 94%
10/26/04 59 89%
11/04/04 59 97%
Third-Grade Spring District
11/08/04 58 88%
CBM Benchmark: 120 correct
11/15/04 59 88% words per minute
11/25/04 49 94%
12/01/04 58 Not Noted
12/16/04 68 94%
12/17/04 68 Not Noted
12/20/04 Christmas
Vacation
12/27/04
1/06/05 62 Not Noted
1/13/05 78 95%
1/20/05 70 95%

Tier 3 Lauren’s scores on DIBELS oral reading fluency

Tier 3 interventions (2004–2005). The instruc- measures using first-grade reading probes (through
tional assistant spent an additional 30 minutes each February) and second-grade probes (after Febru-
day of the week using Phonics for Reading, Read ary). At the end of April 2005, Lauren was reading
Naturally, and Making Words. Two students were in at a rate of 72 correct words per minute. A typical
Lauren’s Tier 3 instructional group. third-grade student is reading 120 correct words per
Tier 3 progress monitoring. Table 5.20 shows minute on grade-level materials.
Table 5.20. Third-Grade Tier 3 Progress Monitoring – DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Correct Words per Fluency
Using First-Grade Reading Probes
District CBM Benchmarks
1/25/05 66 94%
1/31/05 First-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 54 CWPM
2/10/05 73 90%
2/18/05 88 88% Second-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 94 CWPM
2/24/05 69 88%
2/28/05 72 96% Third-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 120 CWPM
Changed Progress Monitoring Tool
To Second-Grade DIBELS Probes
3/08/05 88 97%
3/14/05
3/23/05 79 93%
3/28/05 Spring Break
4/07/05 66 92%
4/14/05 75 97%
4/20/05 82 87%
4/28/05 72 86%

RTI Manual
Disability and Eligibility Determination near (but below) grade level. Her words per minute
Eligibility determination is based on academic score on the IRI was 52, nonsense words score was
testing, intellectual testing, IRI, ISAT, classroom 35 out of 50 points, sight words score was 9 out of
observation, work samples, and responsiveness to 10, and comprehension was 100 percent.
intervention. When Lauren was in third grade, reading inter-
In addition, the following information was used ventions and progress monitoring continued during
to determine disability and eligibility: the fall of 2004. Her base line was 68 correct words
per minute with 94 percent accuracy on first-grade
Evidence of resistance to interventions. Lauren reading probes. Her goal was 86 correct words per
has had more than two years of direct reading inter- minute with 98 percent accuracy on first-grade
vention since her Intervention Plan was initially writ- probes. As indicated on her progress-monitoring
ten January 15, 2003. Interventions have included graph, she continued to demonstrate a slow rate of
Read Naturally, Lindamood Bell, Edmark, and Open skill acquisition and inconsistency of accuracy. On
Court. In second and third grade, she participated in January 24, 2005, an additional intervention of 30
reading switch (one hour per day, five days a week) minutes of pre-teaching, or “front-loading,” was
in which instruction was differentiated for her read- added. During this 30 minutes, time was spent pre-
ing level. In addition, she received small-group in- paring Lauren for the coming reading instruction.
struction with the school’s special education teacher Following a decision rule to consider changes
to help minimize environmental issues that could be for a student when probes result in three consecutive
affecting her rate of progress, such as the possibil- data points above or below the aim line, a change
ity of her inability to filter out noise and activities was made for Lauren. Beginning on March 8, 2005,
occurring around her. Her pre-intervention level of second-grade reading probes were used for progress
performance indicated she had a discrepancy ratio monitoring. It was noted that her skills regressed af-
of 3.13 when comparing her performance (32 cor- ter spring break (from 79 correct words per minute
rect words per minute) to typical peers (100 correct to 66 correct words per minute). She continued to
words per minute). She continued to make steady, demonstrate inconsistency and slow rate of skill ac-
albeit slow, progress. Lauren’s progress was moni- quisition.
tored with first-grade reading probes using DIBELS.
The goal set for her was that, within nine weeks, Consideration of resources necessary to sup-
using grade-level passages within the general edu- port the student to participate and progress in the
cation classroom, she should read orally at a median general education curriculum being beyond those
rate of 100 words read correctly per minute. available in the general education curriculum. Al-
A formal follow-up meeting was held on March though Lauren’s reading skills have improved, they
9, 2004. Lauren continued progress above her aim have not improved at the rate necessary to bring her
line. One concern the team had was the amount of to near grade level, despite more than two years of
instruction missed over several weeks due to sur- direct and intense interventions. She will need direct
gery to remove her adenoids and tonsils. A change in and small-group instruction for an indefinite period.
the music schedule affected her reading instruction Academic support as well as curricular modifica-
time. However, she ended at 45 correct words per tions and adaptations within the general education
minute and seemed to be making positive progress. classroom are also necessary.
Another formal follow-up meeting was held at
the end of Lauren’s second-grade year, in May 2005. Evidence of severe discrepancy from peer’s
It was reported that she was doing great in all areas in performance in the areas of concern. Lauren’s flu-
the classroom. Her reading progress monitoring con- ency on second-grade probes is 72 correct words per
tinued to show an upward trend. Her median score minute. This is more than 1.5 times discrepant from
over the previous three weeks was 69, although her the expected benchmark on the third-grade DIBELS
last score was a 59, demonstrating an inconsistency probes. She scored “2,” then “1,” then “1” con-
in retention of skill acquisition. She scored a “2” on secutively on the three administrations of the Idaho
the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) in the spring of Reading Indicator during third grade and scored 1
2004. A score of “1” indicates achievement below then 2 during both trials given in second grade. On
grade level. A score of “2” indicates achievement the Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) ad-

ministered in fall 2004, her Rash Unit (RIT) score of that a severe discrepancy exists between intel-
166 on the Idaho Standards Achievement Test was lectual ability and achievement in one or more
below basic at the third-grade level and 28 points of the following areas: oral expression, listening
below proficient at a third-grade level. This score comprehension, written expression, basic read-
represents the 17th percentile. ing skills, reading comprehension, mathemat-
In addition, a curriculum-based evaluation was ics calculation, or mathematical reasoning. A
performed (01/31/05) using the Comprehensive severe discrepancy exists when the broad area
Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Lauren score on an achievement test is 15 or more stan-
showed low-average ability in phonological aware- dard score points below a regressed full-scale
ness with a strength in blending and segmenting intellectual ability score. When the broad area
non-words. Her phonological short-term memory score is within 15 standard score points of the
and fluency scores put her in the average range. Her regressed full-scale intellectual ability score, but
responses suggested strength in rote memorizations a subtest score is 15 or more points lower than
and recall but a weakness in concept formation and the regressed full-scale intellectual ability score,
reasoning skills. Helping her recognize patterns and the evaluation team may use professional judg-
how information compares to prior knowledge is ment to determine whether a severe discrepancy
also a key in helping her learn basic skills. exists.
4. The severe discrepancy between ability and
Convergence of evidence that logically and em- achievement is not primarily the result of a vi-
pirically supports the team’s decisions. All informa- sual, hearing, or motor impairment; a cognitive
tion obtained through the evaluation and interven- impairment; emotional disturbance; or environ-
tions process supports this student’s educational mental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
need and eligibility for special education in the area It was determined that Lauren’s primary disability is
of reading. She will continue to require an individu- a learning disability.
alized plan for intense and sustained interventions
and support to benefit and progress in the general Special Education
education curriculum. Special education reading intervention curricu-
An evaluation team will determine that a student lum. An instructional assistant works with Lauren
is eligible for special education services as a student and two or three others in a small group for one hour
with a learning disability when all of the following a day, five days a week. The interventions are Read
criteria are met: Naturally and Spelling Mastery.
1. An evaluation that meets the criteria specified Special education progress monitoring. The
in the State Special Education Manual has been measures used in special education to determine
conducted. progress include DIBELS/Running Records (data
2. A team member other than the student’s general collected biweekly), comprehension questions from
education teacher has observed the student’s Read Naturally (data collected weekly), and Spelling
academic performance in the general education Mastery (data collected daily). Table 5.21 on page
classroom to document relevant behavior. 5.46 shows Lauren’s progress monitoring scores on
3. A comparison of assessment results determines DIBELS oral reading fluency assessments.

RTI Manual
Table 5.21. Special Education Progress Monitoring • DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Correct Words Per Fluency
With Third-Grade DIBELS Probes District CBM Benchmarks
9/16/05 86 correct words per 94%
First-Grade Spring CBM
minute
Benchmark: 54 correct words per
9/23/05 76 93% minute
9/30/05 74 76%
Second-Grade Spring CBM
10/14/05 93 96% Benchmark: 94 correct words per
minute
10/21/05 86 82%
11/04/05 111 95% Third-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 120 correct words
11/18/05 96 93%
per minute
12/02/05 95 99%
12/09/05 112 95%
12/16/05 105 92%
With Fourth-Grade DIBELS Probes
1/06/06 75 88%
1/13/06 85 86%
1/20/06 89 91%
1/27/06 75 92%

Table 5.22.Comprehensive Evaluation: Components and Measures for SLD Determination (Lauren)
Test/Meeting
Component Assessment/Procedure Type of Data & Score Criteria Comments
Date
2003–2005 CTOPP – Phonological Awareness Standard Score (SS) Analysis of scores We used Achievement and
sums=14; %ile=12 is dependent on IQ scores to validate the
CTOPP – Phonological Memory SS sums=19; %ile=42 what was used and RTI process.
CTOPP – Rapid Naming SS sums=17; %ile=27 why.
CTOPP – Alt. Phon. Awareness SS sums=24; %ile=79
CTOPP – Alt. Rapid Naming SS sums=13; %ile=8
WIAT-II – Word Reading SS=84; %ile=14
Multifaceted
WIAT-II – Reading Comprehension SS=105; %ile=63
WIAT-II – Pseudoword Decoding SS=80; %ile=9
WIAT-II – Listening Comprehension SS=108; %ile=70
Stanford Binet 5 – Non-verbal IQ SS=92
Stanford Binet 5 – Verbal IQ SS=100
Stanford Binet 5 – Full Scale IQ SS=96
DIBELS
3/21/05 Stanford Binet 5 – Non-verbal IQ SS=92 Average range Factor variability to

Stanford Binet 5 – Verbal IQ SS=100 for SS = 7–13. help assess deficits in
Stanford Binet 5 – Full Scale IQ SS=96 Intrasubtest reasoning, also FS IQ used
comparisons. to determine discrepancy
Intellectual Ability
State’s discrepancy between ability and
model for SLD achievement.
uses Regressed IQ Collaboration with other
based on FS IQ. data.
4/05/05 WIAT-II Composite Std. Scores Regresses IQ = Strengths and weaknesses

Reading: 87 Achievement determined by scatter
Math: 82 composite scores
Written Language: 95 to demonstrate
Oral Language: 106 “state discrepancy”
Aptitude- need to be ≤ 83 for
Achievement this case
Discrepancies 1/5/03 – 4/25/05 RTI method also used DIBELS benchmarks: correct Data driven Data collected to determine
words per minute. Using response to interventions,
research-based interventions. discrepancy ratio (com-
parison of student’s perfor-

mance to typical peers), and
rate of skill acquisition.
5.47
Test/Meeting
Date
WIAT-II: WIAT-II Standard Scores SLD discrepancy WIAT-II scores are

4/05/05 Word Reading – below avg. 84 model requires compared to IQ scores
RTI Manual
Stanford-Binet: Pseudoword Decoding – ” 80 SS of 83 or lower
5.48
3/21/05 Reading Comprehension – avg. 105 to qualify as a
Math Reasoning – below avg. 82 student with learn-
Numerical Operations – ” 85 ing disabilities
Spelling – below avg. 83 under current state
Written Expression – avg. 109 criteria
Processing assessments Sum: Nonverbal & Verbal Strengths with short-term

Stanford-Binet subtests Scaled Scores and visual memory, verbal
Intra-individual
VERBAL reasoning and blending
Differences
Fluid Reasoning FR = 12 and segmenting nonwords.
Knowledge KN = 11 Concerns include verbal
Quantitative Reasoning QR = 6 quantitative reasoning and
Visual Spatial VS = 11 concept formation used
Working Memory WM = 10 for higher-level problem
NONVERBAL solving
Fluid Reasoning FR = 7
Knowledge KN = 6
Quantitative Reasoning QR = 10
Visual Spatial VS = 9
Working Memory WM = 12
Information 1/31/05 CTOPP SS – see above N/A Strengths and weaknesses

or Language determined by scatter
Processing
Involvement
CNS (Central 3/21/05 Assessed through the Stanford-Binet 5, looking SS N/A Strengths and weaknesses
Nervous System) at several processes: memory, attention, visual- determined by scatter
Involvement spatial reasoning.
Exclusionary N/A Student has an average IQ and disability not due to N/A N/A N/A
Criteria lack of instruction or limited English proficiency
N/A Student is friendly and likable. She fits in with N/A N/A N/A
Behavioral
her peers, and at the time, there were no concerns
and Academic
about her social development. Academic screening
Screening
is done in part through the WAIT and CBMs.

Test/Meeting
Date
1/15/03 Interventions have included Read Naturally, DIBELS benchmarks Interventions Response to intervention,
Appropriate Lindamood Bell, Edmark, and Open Court. and progress are comparing present level of
Learning assessed weekly. performance to goal.
Experiences Interventions are
changed as needed
Social Skills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Deficits
Adaptive Behavior N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2003–2005 Parent involvement from initial intervention plan N/A N/A IDEA procedural
on, such as with follow-up meetings, permission to safeguards are given with
Parents’ Role assess using standardized tests, and enrollment in permission to assessment
special education (leading to special
education)
4/29/05 IEP team makes eligibility decisions based on all Collaborative data State criteria To determine specific
evidence. must be met learning disability or
Student is 1.6 times discrepant from peers. for eligibility noncategorical eligibility.
Eligibility Decision
(either SLD or Individual schools
and Professional
noncategor- must apply with the
Judgment
ical). state department of
education to be able to use
noncategorical eligibility.
N/A This student now has an Individual Plan (or N/A N/A N/A
program) with specific goals and objectives. Once
Special Education
these goals have been met, an evaluation will take
Exit Criteria
place through standardized assessments to consider
exit.

5.49
RTI Manual
Case Study: Michael

Reading: Kindergarten (2003 – 2004) —
Second Grade (2005 – 2006)
Michael is a 7-year-old Caucasian male. He is in chael’s DIBELS scores as well as the cut scores that
second grade and has not been retained. indicate risk.
Tier 1 screening – behavior. No data were col-
Kindergarten (2003 – 2004) lected on behavior.
General Education - Tier 1
During kindergarten, Michael’s general educa- Tier 2
tion (Tier 1) reading instruction consisted of 60 min- Tier 2 interventions. Michael received Tier 2 in-
utes each day, five days a week, with Open Court. terventions in kindergarten. The Title I teacher used
The general education teacher gave reading instruc- Optimize with Michael and four other students for
tion to the whole class and also to small groups. 30 minutes each day, five days a week.
Michael’s group comprised five students, and small- In addition, Michael received small-group in-
group instruction also consisted of Open Court. struction with a classroom associate to work on letter
Tier 1 screening - reading. The school admin- names and sounds for 15 minutes twice each week
istered DIBELS assessments three times each year: and small-group instruction with the classroom as-
in the fall, winter, and spring. Table 5.23 shows Mi- sociate for segmenting sounds, also twice a week.
Table 5.23. Michael’s Tier 1 DIBELS Screening Scores – Kindergarten

Assessment Michael’s Scores At-Risk Cut Score
Fall LNF 0 correct letter names At risk < 2; some risk < 8
Fall ISF 3 correct sounds At risk < 4; some risk < 8
Winter ISF 16 Deficit < 10; emerging < 25
Winter PSF 23 At risk < 7; some risk < 18
Winter NWF 7 At risk < 5; some risk < 13
Spring PSF 38 Deficit < 10; emerging < 35
Spring NWF 14 At risk < 15; some risk < 25
• Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) = number of letters named correctly in one minute

First Grade (2004–2005) Tier 1 screening - reading. During first grade,

General Education - Tier 1 the school administered DIBELS assessments to
In first grade, Michael’s general education Michael three times – in the fall, winter, and spring.
teacher provided (Tier 1) reading instruction for Table 5.24 shows Michael’s assessment results as
60 minutes each day, five days a week, with Open well as the scores that indicate possible risk.
Court. The general education teacher gave reading Tier 1 screening – behavior. No data were col-
instruction to the whole group and also to Michael’s lected on behavior.
small group of five students.
Table 5.24. Michael’s Tier 1 DIBELS Screening Scores – First Grade

Assessment Scores At Risk Cut Score
Fall DIBELS - PSF 51 Deficit < 10; emerging < 35
Fall DIBELS - NWF 28 At risk < 13; some risk < 24
Winter DIBELS - PSF 50 Deficit < 10; emerging < 35
Winter DIBELS - NWF 39 At risk < 30; some risk < 50
Winter DIBELS - ORF 11 At risk < 8; some risk < 20
Spring DIBELS - NWF 33 At risk < 30; some risk < 50
Spring DIBELS - ORF 20 At risk < 20; some risk < 40
Tier 2 sisted of an intensive reading curriculum, in addi-

Tier 2 intervention plan. Michael was having tion to the core curricula provided in his classroom.
difficulty with nonsense word fluency (NWF) skills. First-grade Tier 2 interventions included the fol-
His level of performance before intervention was lowing:
28.5 on NWF and 8 words per minute on first-grade • Read Well with the Title I teacher for 20 min-
reading passages. The expectation was a score of 50 utes, five days each week. This small group
on NWF and a rate of at least 20 words per min- comprised four students.
ute on first-grade passages. Thus, Michael’s scores • Reading Mastery with the Title I teacher for 15
exhibited a discrepancy of 21.5 words per minute minutes, four days each week, in a one-to-one
for NWF and 12 words per minute for the reading setting.
passages. • PALS (a structured reading activity focused on
The Title I reading teacher monitored Michael’s letter-sound correspondence, decoding, phono-
progress on NWF and oral reading fluency probes logical awareness, and sight words) with the
weekly. If four of Michael’s data points fell below general education teacher for 15 minutes, three
his goal line, the team discussed the effectiveness of days each week. There were three students in
the intervention. The school psychologist helped the this small group.
reading teacher in analyzing the progress-monitor- Tier 2 progress monitoring. For Michael’s Tier
ing data monthly and did periodic observations. 2 reading interventions, progress was monitored
The following goal was set: After about 12 in- weekly. Michael’s average for nonsense word flu-
structional weeks, Michael will score 50 on NWF ency (NWF) was 31.5. The cut score designating
and will read at a rate of 32 words per minute on responsiveness for NWF is less than 30. Table 5.25
first-grade passages. shows Michael’s DIBELS scores for nonsense word
Tier 2 interventions. Michael’s instruction con- fluency as well as the cut scores that indicate pos-

RTI Manual
sible risk. Michael’s goal was to read 50 words per tervention was 31.5 words per minute for nonsense
minutes on these assessments. Follow-up – May 4, word fluency. Michael’s problem was not resolved.
2005: Michael’s mean level of performance after in-
Table 5.25. Michael’s DIBELS Scores for Nonsense Word Fluency—First Grade
Nonsense Reading Fluency Michael’s Scores
Cut Scores
(NWF) (Words per Minute)
1/31 Baseline 28.5 Cut Scores for First-Grade
DIBELS Nonsense Word
2/7 40
Fluency (NWF):
2/4 39
Mid-year
2/22 32
< 30 Deficit
2/28 27 30-50 Emerging
3/7 51
End Of Year
3/14 49 < 30 Deficit
3/21 Spring Break 30-50 Emerging
3/28 29 Michael’s Goal: 50 words per

4/4 31 minute
4/11 38
4/18 43
4/25 49
5/2 44
5/9 33
5/16
5/23 42
5/30
Figure 5.1. Michael’s DIBELS Scores for Nonsense Word Fluency—First Grade

Second Grade (2005–2006) (current year), the school administered DIBELS non-
General Education - Tier 1 sense word fluency (NWF) and oral reading fluency
In second grade, Michael’s general education (ORF) assessments to Michael in the fall (10/24/05).
(Tier 1) reading instruction consisted of 60 minutes These assessments will also be administered in win-
each day, five days a week, with Open Court. The ter (2/13/06) and spring (5/3/06). Michael’s fall
general education teacher gave reading instruction screening scores are shown in Table 5.26.
to a group of 25 students. Tier 1 screening – behavior. No data were col-
Screening. During Michael’s second-grade year lected on behavior.
Table 5.26. Michael’s Second-Grade Screening Scores

Assessment Scores At Risk Cut Score
Fall DIBELS - NWF 47 sounds 30-50 Emerging
Fall DIBELS - ORF 28 wpm 26-44 Some risk
Winter DIBELS -
Winter DIBELS -
Spring DIBELS -
Spring DIBELS -
Tier 2 utes in a small-group setting. Instruction will consist

Tier 2 intervention plan. Michael has low read- of the Reading Mastery curricula and will take place
ing decoding skills. His reading scores indicate a in the Title I reading room.
discrepancy from peers. It would be expected that Second-grade Tier 2 progress monitoring. The
in the fall of second grade, students would read 44 Title I reading teacher will administer weekly read-
correct words per minute. As of August 29, 2005, ing probes. The educational consultant will assist
(before second-grade intervention), Michael read at the Title I teacher in analyzing progress-monitor-
a rate of nine words per minute (as shown in Table ing data. The trend line will be charted and graphed
5.27 on page 5.54, Michael’s oral reading fluency weekly in accordance with the established goal line.
progress-monitoring scores). Thus, Michael’s score If four consecutive data points fall below the estab-
represents a discrepancy of 35 words per minute. lished goal line, the team will review the effective-
This score indicates that a student is at risk. ness of the intervention. The educational consultant
The following goal was set for Michael: In about will periodically observe instruction within Title I
eight instructional weeks, Michael will correctly and general education reading/language arts lessons
read at least 21 words per minute within grade-level as well. Table 5.27 on page 5.54 shows Michael’s
reading probes. oral reading fluency progress monitoring scores.
Second-grade Tier 2 interventions. The Title I Michael’s progress in reading is not at the rate need-
teacher will work with Michael each day for 30 min- ed to meet district standards and benchmarks.

RTI Manual
Table 5.27. Michael’s Second Grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring Scores
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Michael’s Scores Cut Scores
8/29 9 At Risk Fall Cut Scores
< 26 At Risk
9/5 16
26-44 Some Risk
9/12 14 > 44 Low Risk
9/19 16
9/26 12
10/3 29
10/10 30
10/17 12
10/24 21
Figure 5.2. Michael’s Second Grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring Scores
Disability and Eligibility Determination Discrepancy is the difference between a student’s

A student is considered eligible for special edu- level of performance and the level of performance
cation services when a team of professionals and the of peers or standards of expected performance for
parents consider the relevant information and deter- students of his or her age or grade. Discrepancy data
mine help the team determine the significance of concerns
1. that the student has a disability about a student. The team needs this information to
2. that the student’s needs cannot be met with gen- determine whether the student has a disability and
eral education resources alone and special edu- whether or not the concerns can be addressed with
cation resources are needed to meet the student’s general education resources. Table 5.28 on page 5.55
needs shows Michael’s oral reading fluency and nonsense
Disability determinations are based on edu- word fluency scores as well as the discrepancy be-
cational progress, discrepancy, educational needs, tween his scores and expected performance on these
progress monitoring, and DIBELS benchmarks. measures.

Table 5.28. Michael’s Oral Reading Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency Scores
Michael’s Expected
Date Data Source Discrepancy
Performance Performance
11/21 ORF 21 words read 58 words read – 37
correctly per correctly per
minute minute
11/21 NWF 47 sounds correct 60 sounds correct – 13
per minute per minute
Special Education of fluency and accuracy delays in both areas, or it

Special education intervention plan. Informa- may be appropriate to have particular assignments
tion used to determine instructional needs for Mi- shortened so the assessment focuses more on his
chael included a review of records; a review of Mi- knowledge of content materials than his reading
chael’s work; interviews with Michael, a parent, or and writing skills. At times, it may be appropriate
teacher; observations of Michael; and curriculum- to have Michael dictate responses or allow him to
based evaluation. respond orally to evaluate his actual comprehension
Instructional goals: Michael would benefit from of concepts.
the following: direct and explicit instruction, a pre- Michael will likely benefit from materials being
view of new or unfamiliar vocabulary, opportunities read aloud to address reading fluency/accuracy de-
to respond to direct questions, and relatively im- lays and will benefit from opportunities to receive a
mediate feedback. Michael also would benefit from pre-teaching and/or repetition of new vocabulary as
strategies that allow him to receive multiple, mean- well. Michael may benefit from spelling errors not
ingful examples and a repetition of concepts. being counted as part of grades or having an adult
Michael needs continued direct instruction with or peer assist Michael with editing before turning in
basic decoding skills. He needs practice discriminat- final copies.
ing between the long and short vowel sounds. Words Michael will benefit from any opportunities to
with vowel teams are also difficult for him. He does receive instruction and feedback in a small group or
not consistently identify consonant blends or di- one-to-one setting. He benefits from opportunities
graphs and needs explicit instruction in these areas. to work at a modified pace and to receive structured
Although his sight word development appears as a feedback and repetition.
general individual strength, he needs further sight Tier 3 special education interventions. The spe-
word instruction within his overall reading pro- cial education teacher works with Michael using
gram. Continuing in the Reading Mastery curricu- Reading Mastery I for 45 minutes a day. There are
lum would address many of his decoding needs. The four students in this small group.
controlled vocabulary that is used in the lessons will Tier 3 special education – progress monitor-
allow him to practice reading passages with more ing. Michael’s teacher uses accuracy rate, level, and
fluency and accuracy. sloped tier lines for oral reading fluency to monitor
Michael will benefit from modifications and ac- Michael’s progress weekly in special education.
commodations due to the overall deficit nature of his To designate responsiveness, the four-point de-
reading, writing, and math skills. He needs to have cision rule and trend line are used. Table 5.29 on
extended time to complete assignments in which page 5.56 shows Michael’s DIBELS oral reading
extensive reading and writing are required because fluency progress monitoring scores.

RTI Manual
Table 5.29. Michael’s DIBELS Progress Monitoring Scores—Second Grade

DIBELS Oral Michael’s Scores
Michael’s Scores DIBELS ORF At-Risk
Reading Fluency Correct Words per
Retell Accuracy Score
(ORF) Minute
12/7 BASELINE 21 Mid-Year
At Risk < 52
12/12/05 29 76%
At Some Risk < 68
1/02/06 31 86%
Retell Accuracy = 98%
1/09/06 32 84%
1/16/06 33 92%

Resource List: Student Case Studies

AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency (Edformation, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
Inc.) (CTOPP) (Pearson Assessment)
http://www.aimsweb.com/products/aimsweb_pro.htm http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/
AIMSweb Pro includes assessments and web-based The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Process-
reporting components to provide schools with a 3 ing (CTOPP) assesses phonological awareness, pho-
Tiered Evidence-Based Progress Monitoring Sys- nological memory, and rapid naming. Persons with
tem for universal screening, strategic assessment, deficits in one or more of these kinds of phonological
determining special services eligibility, and frequent processing abilities may have more difficulty learn-
progress monitoring. It utilizes Curriculum-Based ing to read than those who do not.
Measurement (CBM), an approved and standardized
assessment practice. Conners’ Rating Scale-Revised: Long Version
Teacher (CTRS-R:L) and Parents (CPRS-R:L)
AIMSweb Maze (Edformation, Inc.) (Multi-Health Systems)
http://www.aimsweb.com/promo/mcbm.htm https://www.mhs.com/
Maze is a multiple-choice close task that students Developed by C. Keith Conners, the Conners’ Rat-
complete while reading silently. The first sentence of ing Scales for ADD/ADHD consist of two separate
a 150-400 word passage is left intact. Thereafter, ev- scales to measure a child’s behavior compare them to
ery seventh word is replaced with three words inside levels of appropriate norm groups from (1) teacher’s
parenthesis. One of the words is the exact one from perspective: hyperactivity, conduct problems, emo-
the original passage. tional-over indulgence, anxious passivity, asocial
behaviors, and daydream - attention problems; and
Balanced Literacy (Scholastic Literacy Place) from (2) parent’s perspective: conduct problems,
http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4315 learning problems, psychosomatic, impulsive hyper-
Dorothy S. Strickland, reading expert and professor activity, and anxiety.
of education at Rutgers University, has developed
material that address five rules of thumb for main- Decodable Books - Open Court Phonemic
taining balanced literacy: (1) teach skills as a way Awareness (SRA, a Division of the McGraw-Hill
to gain meaning. Skills are not ends in themselves, Companies)
(2) each day, include time for both guided instruc- http://www.sraonline.com/
tion and independent work. Otherwise, students will Open Court Phonemic Awareness is designed to pro-
never internalize skills and make them their own, (3) vide systematic, explicit phonemic awareness and
avoid teaching children as if they were empty recep- phonics instruction.
tacles for knowledge. Instead, allow them to build
knowledge in a process-oriented way, (4) integrate
Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (Riverside/
print and electronic materials effectively. That way,
your classroom will reflect the multimedia world in Houghton Mifflin)
which students live, and (5) always consider stan- http//:www.riverpub.com/
dardized test scores in light of informal assessment The DAR (Diagnostic Assessments of Reading) is a
data. Encourage parents to do the same. criterion-referenced reading test developed by F.G.
Roswell, J.S. Chall, M.E. Curtis, and G. Kearns. Its
purpose is to assess individual student achievement
Behavior Assessment System for Children
in print awareness, phonological awareness, letters
(BASC) (Pearson Assessment) and sounds, word recognition, word analysis, oral
http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/ reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading compre-
The Behavior Assessment System for Children hension, spelling, and word meaning. It is adminis-
(BASC) is a comprehensive system for measuring tered on an as needed basis to selected students in
behavior and emotions of children and adolescents. grades K–12 (ages 5 to adult) who are not making
It provides a complete picture of a child’s behavior. progress in their reading intervention.

RTI Manual
DIBELS (University of Oregon) Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction

http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ (ECRI) (National Reading Center)
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy http://www.ecri.cc/
Skills (DIBELS) are a set of standardized, individu- ECRI is a program that teaches elementary and
ally administered measures of early literacy devel- secondary teachers (grades K-12) how and what to
opment designed to be short (one minute) fluency teach in reading and language arts instruction, how
measures used to regularly monitor the development to schedule school/classroom time, obtain formative
of pre-reading and early reading skills. and summative student data, and implement critical
teaching behaviors ECRI identified were essential to
Differential Abilities Scale (DAS) (Harcourt As- prevent failure.
sessment)
http://harcourtassessment.com/ Extensions in Reading® Series (Curriculum
The DAS measures conceptual and reasoning abili- Associates, Inc.)
ties in children aged 30 months to 17 years. It in- http://www.curriculumassociates.com/
cludes a preschool level and a school age level. This The Extensions in Reading Series is a research-based
relatively new measure has good psychometric prop- series designed to strengthen and extend grade 1-8
erties, which increasingly are being used with pre- students’ reading strategies through the use of graph-
school aged children. ic organizers for genre-related writing.
Early Screening Inventory (ESI) (Pearson Early Fox in a Box (CTB/ McGraw-Hill)
Learning) http://www.ctb.com/
http://www.pearsonearlylearning.com/ Fox in a Box is an early literacy assessment that mea-
The Early Screening Inventory-Revised (ESI-R) is sures children’s skills twice yearly from Kindergarten
a reliable and valid developmental screening instru- through Grade 2. It provides diagnostic information
ment that is individually administered to children of selected skills in four learning strands – phonemic
from 3 to 6 years of age to measure development awareness, phonics, reading/oral expression, listen-
in three areas: visual-motor/adaptive, language and ing/writing.
cognition, and gross motor skills. The ESI-P (pre-
school) and ESI-K (kindergarten) identify children Harcourt School Publishers
who may need special education services in order to http://www.harcourt.com/
perform successfully in school. Harcourt School Publishers is an elementary school
publisher that develops, publishes, and markets text-
Earobics (Cognitive Concepts Inc.) books, electronic/online material, and related in-
http://www.earobics.com/ structional materials for school and/or home use.
Earobics, provides early literacy skill training by • The Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency Assessment.
teaching the phonological awareness, listening and Using a subset of questions from Stanford 10 (Read-
introductory phonics skills required for learning to ing and Listening) the Stanford Reading First assess
read and spell. the five essential components of reading as specified
in the Reading First legislation: phonemic aware-
Edmark® (Riverdeep) ness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading flu-
http://www.riverdeep.net/ ency, and reading comprehension strategies.
The Edmark Reading Program is designed for stu- • Harcourt Holistic Assessment Books provides au-
dents with learning or developmental disabilities thentic literature for assessment of students’ applica-
and those who have not succeeded with other read- tion of reading, writing skills and strategies.
ing methods. The Edmark Reading Program uses a
whole-word approach, with short instructional steps, • Harcourt Trophies Intervention includes materi-
consistent repetition, and positive reinforcement to als (Intervention Resource Kits, Readers, Teacher’s
ensure that students experience immediate success. Guides, Practice Books, Skill Cards, etc.) for com-
prehensive teaching support and supplemental in-
struction.
• Harcourt Holistic Assessment uses the DELV to
assess students’ knowledge of speech and language
that are non-contrastive (i.e., common across variet-
ies of American English so they are less likely to lead
to misidentification).

• Harcourt Holistic Listening Comprehension. The Jordan Left-Right Reversal Test-Revised

listening comprehension section of the Stanford (JLRRT) (Academic Therapy Publications)
Achievement Test Series: Stanford 10-Listening as- http://www.academictherapy.com/
sesses listening comprehension with dictated selec- Developed by Brian T Jordan, revised edition of the
tions and questions that reflect the listening materi- JLRRT is a normed reference test that assesses re-
als students hear in school and outside of the class- versals of letters, numbers, and words in 5 to 12 year
room. olds. It is designed for use as a screening device by
classroom teachers or for inclusion in a full diagnos-
Houghton Mifflin Reading Series (Houghton tic test battery by a specialist.
Mifflin)
http://www.hmco.com/products/products_elementary. Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 2nd Edition
html (K-BIT-2) (Pearson Assessments)
Reading series used in order to build fluency, extend http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/
key themes and concepts across curriculum areas, K-BIT-2 is a brief (approximately 20 minutes), in-
provide practice and the application of skills and dividually administered measure of verbal and non-
strategies. verbal cognitive ability for individuals age 4 years
through adults.
Houghton Mifflin Math Central (Houghton
Mifflin) Language Master (Drake Educational Associates)
http://www.eduplace.com/math/mathcentral/ http://websites.uk-plc.net/DRAKE_EDUCATIONAL_
Students develop a strong foundation in math skills ASSOCIATES/list.htm
and concepts, and learn to investigate, reason, and Language Master is an audio-visual aid for children
explain. throughout the world to help develop their language
and literacy skills.
Idaho Reading Indicator (Idaho Department of
Education) Lindamood Phonemic Sequencing (LiPS) for
http://www.sde.state.id.us/IRI/ Reading, Spelling and Speech (Lindamood-Bell
The Idaho Reading Indicator is an assessment that Learning Processes)
tests for fluency and accuracy of the student’s read- http://www.lindamoodbell.org/
ing. It is the single statewide test specified by the Ida- The LiPS Program (formerly known as the ADD Pro-
ho state board of education, and the state department gram, Auditory Discrimination in Depth) stimulates
of education ensures that testing takes place twice a phonemic awareness through an awareness of the
year in grades K through 3. mouth actions which produce speech sounds. This
awareness becomes the means for verifying sounds
Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (Idaho within words and allows individuals to become self-
Department of Education) correcting.
http://www.sde.state.id.us/Dept/testreports.asp
Idaho’s comprehensive assessment system begins Literacy Place (Scholastic, Inc.)
with kindergarten and continues through high school. http://teacher.scholastic.com/literacyplace/
The focus of the state assessment program is primar- Literacy Place is a K–6 reading and language arts
ily on math, reading, and language usage skills. program that offers a research-based combination of
systematic skills development, literature, and tech-
Investigations in Data, Numbers and Space nology to make every child a successful reader.
(Pearson-Scott Foresman)
http://www.scottforesmancatalog.com/ MacMillan/McGraw-Hill reading series
Investigations is an approach to teaching mathemat- (McGraw-Hill Companies)
ics based on engaging activities and group learning http://www.macmillanmh.com/
experiences. The curriculum at each grade level is The MacMillan/McGraw-Hill reading series pro-
organized into units that offer from two to eight motes explicit, systematic instruction and research
weeks of work. These units link together to form a proven routines in phonemic awareness, phonics,
complete K-5 curriculum. fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension for chil-
dren in grades 1 through 6.

RTI Manual
Making Words (A Good Apple Language Arts Ac- QuickReads (Pearson Learning Group’s Modern
tivity Book Series) Curriculum Press)
[Available through a variety of book vendors] http://www.quickreads.org/
Making Words is an innovative word study activity QuickReads are short texts to be read quickly and
introduced by Patricia Cunningham (1991) wherein with meaning. The QuickReads program consists of
students are guided through the process of manipu- three levels: B, C, and D. These texts support auto-
lating a set of letters in sequence to construct words. maticity with the high-frequency words and phonics/
It is used to help readers develop their ability to spell syllabic patterns needed to be a successful reader at a
words and apply this knowledge when decoding. particular grade level.
Open Court (SRA/McGraw Hill) Read Naturally (Read Naturally, Inc.)

http://www.sra4kids.com/ http://www.readnaturally.com/
Open Court Reading is a research-based curricu- Students work with the Read Naturally stories on
lum grounded in systematic, explicit instruction of paper and read along to fluent recordings of the sto-
phonemic awareness, phonics and word knowledge, ries on cassettes or audio CDs. Reading along is the
comprehension skills and strategies, inquiry skills teacher modeling step, which helps students learn
and strategies, and writing and language arts skills new words and encourages proper pronunciation,
and strategies. expression, and phrasing.
Optimize (Oregon Project Optimize) (PacifiCorp Read Well (Sopris West)

Foundation for Learning) http://www.sopriswest.com/
http://www.pacificorpfoundation.org/Article/ Read Well is a validated, research-based and data-
Article25116.html driven core reading curriculum that teaches students
Project Optimize helps teachers work with children the important building blocks of literacy while pro-
who arrive at kindergarten unprepared to learn how viding the foundation and skills to develop lifelong
to read. Created by University of Oregon research- readers. It is designed to generate quantitative learn-
ers, Project Optimize lessons provide phonologic ing gains for all students, with struggling students
and alphabetic instruction that prepares targeted kin- showing the most substantial growth by combining
dergartners to be successful beginning readers. explicit, systematic instruction, rich themes and con-
tent, and structured learning activities.
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)
(Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Research on Spelling Mastery (SRA)
Human Development) https://www.sraonline.com/
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/ Spelling Mastery teaches dependable spelling skills
PALS Reading and PALS Math enable classroom by blending the phonemic, morphemic, and whole-
teachers accommodate diverse learners and help a word approaches. It interweaves these three ap-
large proportion of these students achieve success. proaches according to students’ skill development
PALS Reading and PALS Math have been approved and provides lessons to efficiently and effectively
by the U.S. Department of Education’s Program Ef- teach the spelling skills students need to become
fectiveness Panel for inclusion in the National Diffu- proficient writers.
sion Network on effective educational practices.
SRA Reading Mastery (SRA/McGraw-Hill)
Phonics for Reading (Cambridge Reading) http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/readingmastery.htm
(Cambridge University Press) Reading Mastery helps students develop strategies
http://www.cambridge.org/ for reading and understanding through the use of a
Authored by Gillian Brown and Kate Ruttle as part of synthetic phonics approach. Its use has proven to re-
the Cambridge Reading materials, Phonics for Read- duce the prevalence of reading problems and elevate
ing is a book that provides an innovative approach the reading skills of at-risk children well into the av-
to the teaching of phonics after individual letter rec- erage range.
ognition is secure (year 2/primary 3 and upwards)
by developing phonological awareness and spelling
using Cambridge Reading.

Stanford Binet 5 (Riverside Publishing, a Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Pearson

Houghton Mifflin Company) Assessments)
http://www.riverpub.com/products/sb5/index.html http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/
The Stanford-Binet 5 is cognitive ability assessment The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales measure
normed on a stratified random sample of 4,800 indi- personal and social skills used for everyday living
viduals that matches the 2000 U.S. Census. by providing critical data for the diagnosis or evalua-
tion of a wide range of disabilities, including mental
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) retardation, developmental delays, functional skills
assessments (Renaissance Learning, Inc.) impairment, and speech/language impairment.
http://www.renlearn.com/
STAR Reading, STAR Math, and STAR Early Lit- Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-
eracy are standardized, computer-adaptive assess- II) (Harcourt Assessment)
ments for use in K-12 education that provide vital http://harcourtassessment.com/
information to monitor progress, personalize instruc- WIAT–II is a tool useful for achievement skills
tion, and provide immediate formative feedback to placement, learning disability diagnosis, special edu-
assure success in reading, math, and writing. cation placement, curriculum planning, and clinical
appraisal for preschool children through adults.
TerraNova assessments (CTB/MacGraw-Hill
Companies) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children®—
http://www.ctb.com/ Fourth Edition Integrated (WISC-IV) (Harcourt
TerraNova performance assessments offers ex- Assessment)
tended, open-ended tasks that measure knowledge http://harcourtassessment.com/
and critical process skills in Communication Arts Developed by David Wechsler, the WISC-IV as-
(Reading, Language Arts, Writing) and Mathemat- sesses a child’s capabilities with an intellectual score
ics. TerraNova tests by emphasizing measurement of plus provides information for intervention planning.
national content standards and process skills that are
not easily measured by selected-response and shorter Woodcock-Johnson III Complete Battery (WJ-
constructed-response items. III) (Riverside Publishing, a Houghton Mifflin
Company)
Test of Language Development-Primary-Third http://www.hmco.com/products/
Edition (TOLD P:3) (Pearson Assessments) The Woodcock-Johnson III Complete Battery pro-
http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/ vides a co-normed set of tests for measuring general
Completely renormed in 1996, the TOLD P:3 has intellectual ability, specific cognitive abilities, scho-
nine subtests that measure different components of lastic aptitude, oral language, and academic achieve-
spoken language. Picture vocabulary, relational vo- ment.
cabulary, and oral vocabulary assess the understand-
ing and meaningful use of spoken words. Grammatic
understanding, sentence imitation, and grammatic
completion assess differing aspects of grammar.
Word articulation, phonemic analysis, and word dis-
crimination are supplemental subtests that measure
the abilities to say words correctly and to distinguish
between words that sound similar.
TouchMath (Innovative Learning Concepts, Inc.)

http://www.touchmath.com/
TouchMath is an integrated curriculum that has
evolved since 1975, which follows sequential learn-
ing strategies advocated by learning theorists such as
Jean Piaget and Jerome Bruner. It consists of 56 math
kits, workbooks and teaching aids.

RTI Manual
Part Three
Research Examples
National Research Center

on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD)
Experimental Research Studies on Responsiveness-to-Intervention (RTI)
in Reading and Math
Doug Fuchs, Ph.D., Lynn Fuchs, Ph.D., & Don Compton, Ph.D
Vanderbilt University
Introduction Overview: The Reading Study

The National Research Center on Learning Dis- The overall purposes of this research study were
abilities received funding from the Office of Spe- to examine the efficacy of Tier 2 first-grade tutoring
cial Education Programs (OSEP) for five years to as an approach to improve reading performance and
achieve the following goals: preclude reading disability (RD), to assess RD prev-
1. To understand how alternative approaches to alence and severity as a function of method with and
disability identification affect who is identified without instruction, and to explore the pretreatment
with a specific learning disability (SLD) cognitive abilities associated with reading develop-
2. To investigate state and local identification poli- ment.
cies and practices and SLD prevalence Design of study. Sixteen elementary schools
3. To provide technical assistance and conduct dis- within two school districts in the Nashville, Tenn.,
semination to enhance state and local practice in area participated in this study. Eight of the schools
identification were Title I and eight were non-Title I. In the fall,
4. To identify sites that effectively use responsive- students within 42 first-grade classes were screened
ness to intervention (RTI) as a method of pre- using the Rapid Letter Naming (RLN) portion of
vention and a tool for identification—an activ- the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
ity conducted in cooperation with the Regional (CTOPP), Curriculum-Based-Measurement (CBM)
Resource Centers (RRC) Word Identification Fluency (WIF), and teacher
NRCLD is a collaboration of the University of judgment. Six students per class—scoring the low-
Kansas and Vanderbilt University. Vanderbilt Uni- est on one or both measures and judged by the teach-
versity implemented two research studies to investi- er to be low—were designated as “low study entry.”
gate how RTI would affect the identification process They were then rank ordered and split into top and
of students with SLD. One study was conducted in bottom strata. These low performers were randomly
reading; the other in math. The University of Kansas assigned to one of three conditions:
focused on (a) working with the RRCs to identify 1. Tier 1: Fall Tutoring (n = 84)
school sites that effectively use RTI and (b) provid- 2. Tier 2: Spring Tutoring (if unresponsive to fall
ing technical assistance and dissemination of infor- instruction) (n=84)
mation regarding RTI and the SLD determination 3. Control (n=84)
process to states through a variety of avenues. Students who were assigned to Fall Tutoring
This synopsis provides a brief summary of the were immediately placed into Tier 2. Those assigned
research studies conducted by Vanderbilt Univer- to Spring Tutoring remained in Tier 1 during the fall
sity. semester. Their progress in general education dur-
ing the first semester was monitored with CBM-
WIF; only students whose progress was inadequate • Choral practice

in general education then received tutoring in the • Individual practice
spring semester. Specifically, weekly WIF data were - Two opportunities to produce correct sounds
collected for nine weeks to monitor the progress of or words
the students assigned to the Spring Tutoring group. • Writing practice
The dual discrepancy method (WIF slope and level) Steps for the reading fluency practice were the
was used to identify those students who were unre- following:
sponsive to Tier 1 general education instruction and • Choral reading of previous story:
proceeded to Tier 2 tutoring. The students assigned - Echoing the tutor, one line at a time
to Control remained in Tier 1 (general education) - Choral reading of story
throughout the study. • Choral reading of new story:
A battery of standardized reading tests was ad- - Echoing the tutor, one line at a time
ministered to all students at the beginning of the - Choral reading of story
year, mid-year, and end of first grade and again at • Individual speed reading
the end of second, third, and fourth grades. - Each student reads a new story three times
Reading intervention. For Tier 2, Vanderbilt for 30 seconds
used a standardized, research-based preventive tu- - Opportunities are provided to earn incen-
toring protocol that consists of the following ele- tives for increasing fluency
ments: Each day, the students’ mastery of the topic was
• Small groups (two to four students) assessed. If every student in the group achieved
• Conducted for nine weeks, three to four sessions mastery of the sight words on the first day of that
per week, with 45-60 minutes per session set, the group moved to the next set on the following
• Conducted by trained and supervised personnel day. Each student had two trials to master the sight
(not the classroom teacher) words during the session. The group progressed to
The following research-based elements of in- the next set regardless of the students’ mastery sta-
struction were used: tus after two sessions on the same set. This ensured
• Point system for motivation that the group would be able to cover more words
• Immediate corrective feedback and sounds.
• Mastery of content before moving on Fidelity of implementation. During the initial
• More time on difficult activities training, tutors became accustomed to receiving
• More opportunities to respond feedback from the trainers regarding their implemen-
• Fewer transitions tation of the reading and math interventions. They
• Setting goals and self-monitoring received feedback on the accuracy with which they
• Special relationship with tutor followed the steps for instruction and feedback that
Students were placed in small groups of two to they provided to their students. Every session was
four and received instruction outside of the general audiotaped. These tapes were randomly sampled to
education classroom four times per week for nine systematically represent tutors and tutoring groups.
weeks. They completed a total of 36 sessions (64 Using checklists that delineated the steps and actions
lessons), which lasted 45 minutes each. Each tutor- the tutor was supposed to be implementing, fidelity
led instruction session was broken down into the was quantified. Fidelity was documented as strong.
following: See example fidelity checklist on page 5.64.
• 10 minutes of sight word practice Results. At the end of first grade, the effects of
• 5 minutes of letter sound practice Tier 2 tutoring on students’ reading performance
• 15 minutes of decoding practice was assessed, showing that tutoring improved out-
• 15 minutes of reading fluency practice comes on word identification, reading fluency, and
Each lesson was scripted for the tutors with de- comprehension. In addition, fewer students who
tailed steps, as well as exact wording of the instruc- had received Tier 2 tutoring were identified with a
tions to be provided to the students. Steps for the reading disability (RD), compared to students in the
sight word, letter sound, and decoding practice were control group. In addition, results showed that the
following: proportion of students who were identified as hav-
• Introduction of new sound or word ing an RD varied as a function of the procedure by

RTI Manual
in this study. In the fall, students

Example within 41 first-grade classes were
Tutoring Fidelity Checklist: Sight Words screened using a battery of math
tests, and the lowest quintile of
1. The tutor introduces the new sight word, or if there students were identified as “low
study entry.” These students were
is no new word, introduces the sight word from the
randomly assigned to receive Tier
previous set. The tutor states the sight word and spells 2 tutoring or to serve as a control
it. group, which did not receive Tier
2. The tutor asks the students to repeat the sight word and 2 tutoring.
spell it. All low-study-entry students
3. The tutor asks students to state orally each sight word in and a sample of average-achiev-
the set (“What word?”) ing classroom peers were as-
4. If the students say a word incorrectly, the tutor says the sessed with a comprehensive
correct word and the student repeats it. battery in the fall of first grade.
In addition, the low-study-entry
5. The tutor presents each sight word to each student
and average-study-entry students
individually and asks the student to state the word. were assessed weekly using CBM
6. If the student says a word incorrectly, the tutor says the math computation tests for nearly
correct word and the student repeats it. 30 weeks.
7. The tutor repeats steps 5 and 6 with any sight words Math intervention. For Tier 2,
said incorrectly on the first trial. a standardized tutoring protocol,
8. The tutor asks students to state the sight word for the day which consists of the following
9. The tutor asks students to write the new sight word. elements, was used:
• Small groups (two to three
10. If the student has written the sight word correctly, the
students)
tutor states that it is correct and asks the student to • 17 weeks, three sessions per
write the word again. Tutor repeats this step with each week, 40 minutes per session
of the students. • Conducted by trained and su-
11. If a student has difficulty writing the sight word, the pervised personnel (not the
tutor shows the sight word again and instructs the classroom teacher)
student to write it. The following research-based
12. If any words are misread on the second trial, the tutor elements of instruction were in-
marks on the mastery sheet that the group will repeat corporated:
• Point system for motivation
the entire set.
• Immediate corrective feed-
back
which unresponsiveness to Tier first-grade preventive instruction, • Mastery of content before
2 was determined, with some to assess math disability (MD) moving on
procedures functioning better prevalence and severity as a func- • More time on difficult activi-
than others. Important cognitive tion of method with and without ties
predictors of outcome included instruction, and to explore pre- • More opportunities to re-
phonological awareness, teacher treatment cognitive abilities asso- spond
ratings of student behavior and at- ciated with development. • Fewer transitions
tention, and language ability. For Design of study. The reading • Setting goals and self-moni-
other findings, see annotated bib- and math studies were initiated in toring
liography at the end of this piece. subsequent years, so that the sam- • Special relationship with tu-
ples of students did not overlap tor
Overview: The Math Study with each other. Ten elementary Students were tutored in
The purposes of this study schools in the Metropolitan Nash- small groups of two to three and
were was to examine efficacy of ville Public Schools participated received instruction outside of the

general education classroom three times per week 3. If the student is correct, the computer applauds,
for 17 weeks. They covered 17 different topics in says the fact, and awards a point (5 points = a
48 sessions, and each session lasted 40 minutes. “trinket” for the toy box at the bottom of the
Each session was broken down into the following: screen).
30 minutes of tutor-led instruction and 10 minutes 4. If the student is incorrect, the computer removes
of student use of math software (Math Flash) to en- the incorrect fact, replaces it with the correct
hance automatic retrieval of math facts. fact, and says the fact.
The tutor-led instruction used the concrete-rep- 5. At the end of each session, the computer pro-
resentational-abstract model, which relies on con- vides feedback about the number of facts typed
crete objects to promote conceptual understanding correctly and the highest math fact mastered.
(e.g., base-10 blocks for place value instruction). Each day, the student’s mastery of the topic was
The following 17 math topics and concepts were assessed. If every student in the group achieved
taught: mastery prior to the last day of the topic, the group
• identifying and writing numbers to 99 moved on to the next topic (a few topics required
• identifying more, less, and equal with objects completion of all three days). For mastery assess-
• sequencing numbers ment, students completed worksheets independent-
• using <, >, and = symbols ly, with the percentage of correct answers determin-
• skip counting by 10s, 5s, and 2s ing mastery (for most topics – 90 percent accuracy).
• understanding place value (introduction) After the last day on a topic, the group progressed to
• identifying operations the next topic regardless of mastery status.
• place value (0-50) Fidelity of implementation. Fidelity of imple-
• writing number sentences (story problems) mentation of the tutoring protocol was quantified in
• place value (0-99) the same manner as with the reading study (see page
• addition facts (sums to 18) 5.63) and documented as strong.
• subtraction facts (minuends to 18) Results. At the end of Tier 2 (17 weeks), stu-
• review of addition and subtraction facts dents’ math performance as a function of condition
• place value review (average-study-entry versus low-study-entry control
• 2-digit addition (no regrouping) versus low-study-entry tutor) was assessed. Results
• 2-digit subtraction (no regrouping) showed that tutoring substantially enhanced student
• missing addends performance, with improvement for low-study-en-
Each lesson was scripted for the tutors with de- try tutored students exceeding that of low-study-en-
tailed steps and exact wording of the instructions to try control students. Also, on some measures, the tu-
be provided to the students. On the first day of each tored students’ improvement exceeded that of aver-
topic, the students completed a cumulative review age-study-entry classroom peers. In addition, math
worksheet covering previous topics. disability (MD) prevalence was lower among tutored
The Math Flash software design reflects the students compared to low-study-entry control at the
assumption that active and repeated pairing of the end of first grade and at the end of second grade. As
problem stem with the correct answer in the short- with the reading study, MD prevalence and sever-
term memory establishes the association in long- ity depended on the definition of unresponsiveness
term memory. The facts are organized in families of employed, with some definitions functioning better
increasing difficulty. Once response to a math fact is than others. Cognitive predictors of math outcome
consistently correct, it is moved to a “mastered” set. differed depending on the area of mathematics. For
Cumulative review on mastered facts is provided; other results, see the annotated bibliography at the
if a student responds incorrectly, that fact is moved end of this piece.
out of the mastered set. An example of the process
a student follows as he works with Math Flash is as
follows:
1. Math fact flashes on and disappears from com-
puter screen.
2. Student is prompted to type the fact from short-
term memory.

RTI Manual
Publications to Date 2006

Articles
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant,
J.D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade
In Press
for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Bryant, J.D., of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educa-
Hamlett, C.L., & Seethaler, P.M. (in press). Math- tional Psychology, 98, 394-409.
ematics screening and progress monitoring at first Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) models for
grade: Implications for responsiveness-to-interven- identifying learning disabilities rely on the accurate
tion. Exceptional Children. identification of children who, without Tier 2 tutor-
This study assessed the predictive utility of screening, would develop reading disability (RD). This
ing measures for forecasting math disability (MD) study examined two questions about how well we
at the end of second grade and the predictive and can use first-grade assessment data to predict RD
discriminant validity of math progress-monitoring at the end of second grade: (a) Does adding initial
tools. Participants were 225 students who entered word identification fluency (WIF) and five weeks of
the study in first grade and completed data collec- WIF progress-monitoring data (WIF-level and WIF-
tion at the end of second grade. Screening measures slope) to a typical first-grade prediction battery im-
were number identification/counting, fact retrieval, prove the accuracy of the prediction? and (b) Can
curriculum-based measurement (CBM)-computa- innovative statistical tools, which could be used by
tion, and CBM-concepts/applications. For number school folks via computers, increase the accuracy
identification/counting and CBM-computation, 27 of the prediction? To answer these questions we
weekly assessments also were collected. MD was contrasted four classification models based on 206
defined as below the 10th percentile at the end of first-grade children and followed them through the
second grade on calculation and word problems. end of second grade. A combination of initial WIF,
Logistic regression showed that the four-variable five-week WIF-level, and five-week WIF-slope and
screening model produced good and similar fits in classification tree analysis improved prediction suf-
accounting for MD-calculation and MD-word prob- ficiently to recommend their use with RTI.
lems. Classification accuracy was driven primarily Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to re-
by CBM-concepts/applications and CBM-computa- sponsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how
tion; CBM-concepts/applications was the better of
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92-99.
these predictors. CBM-computation, but not number
IDEA 2004 differs from previous versions in that it
identification/counting, demonstrated validity for
permits the identification of reading disability (RD)
progress monitoring.
using responsiveness to intervention (RTI), which is
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (in press). The role of as- also a means of providing early intervention to all
sessment within a multi-tiered approach to reading children at risk for school failure. IDEA 2004 per-
instruction. In Haager, D., Vaughn, S, & Klingner, mits districts to use as much as 15 percent of its spe-
J. (Eds.), Validated practices for three tiers of inter- cial education monies to fund early intervention ac-
tivities. All this has implications for the number and
vention. Baltimore: Brookes.
type of children identified, the kinds of educational
This chapter provides an overview of assessment
services provided, and who delivers them. This cre-
methods for implementing a multitiered approach to
ates the possibility of an expanded role for reading
reading instruction. Discussion focuses on the use of
specialists, who may require pre- and inservice pro-
screening measures for identifying students who re-
fessional development activities. In this article, we
quire a second tier of instruction, in addition to gen-
explain important features of RTI, why it is viewed
eral education and for monitoring student progress
as a viable substitute for IQ-achievement discrepan-
in response to second-tier instruction to determine
cy, and what issues still require investigation.
which students require consideration for special edu-
cation and learning disabilities classification. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Hope, S.K.,
Hollenbeck, K.N., Capizzi, A.M., Craddock, C.F., &
Brothers, R.L. (2006). Extending responsiveness-to-
intervention to math problem solving at third grade.
Teaching Exceptional Children, Mar/Apr, 59-63.
This article describes research-based procedures for
implementing a three-tiered responsiveness-to-in-
tervention system to prevent and identify learning

disabilities in mathematics problem solving at third that the blueprint is but one way to define RTI.
grade. Overviews are provided of Tier 1 general edu-
cation validated math problem-solving instruction Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K.,
and of Tier 2 validated math problem-solving tutor- Bryant, J.D., & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). The preven-
ing procedures. A table highlights important distinc- tion, identification, and cognitive determinants of
tions between what occurs at Tier 1 versus what oc- math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology,
curs at Tier 2. Also, expected reductions in students 97, 493-513.
experiencing serious difficulty with math problem The purposes of this study were to (a) examine the
solving are reported with (a) conventional general efficacy of preventive first-grade tutoring in math-
education instruction in math problem solving (86 ematics; (b) estimate the prevalence and severity of
percent to 100 percent of students fall below the 16th mathematics disability, with and without preventive
percentile), (b) validated math problem-solving in- tutoring and as a function of identification method;
struction at Tier 1 only (29 percent to 54 percent of and (c) explore the pretreatment cognitive charac-
students fall below the 16th percentile), (c) validated teristics associated with mathematics development.
math problem-solving instruction at Tier 2 only (55 Participants were 564 first-graders in 41 classrooms,
percent to 86 percent of students fall below the 16th 127 of whom were designated as at risk (AR) for
percentile), and (d) validated math problem-solving mathematics difficulty and randomly assigned to tu-
instruction at Tiers 1 and Tier 2 (12 percent to 26 per- toring or control conditions. Before treatment, AR
cent of students fall below the 16th percentile). This children and not-AR peers were assessed on cog-
illustrates how two tiers of validated math problem- nitive and academic measures. Tutoring occurred
solving instruction can substantially reduce student three times weekly for 16 weeks; treatment fidelity
difficulty at third grade. was documented; and math outcomes were assessed.
The efficacy of tutoring was supported on computa-
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Implementing re- tion and concepts/applications. Tutoring decreased
sponsiveness-to-intervention to identify learning the prevalence of math disability, with prevalence
disabilities. Perspectives, 32(1), 39-43. and severity varying as a function of identification
To implement responsiveness-to-intervention mod- method and math domain. Attention accounted for
els of learning disabilities identification, schools unique variance in predicting each aspect of end-of-
must make decisions about six procedural dimen- year math performance. Other predictors, depending
sions: how many tiers of intervention to use, how to on the aspect of math performance, were nonverbal
target students for preventive (Tier 2) intervention, problem solving, working memory, and phonologi-
the nature of that preventive (Tier 2) intervention, cal processing.
how to determine whether students have responded
adequately to Tier 2 intervention, the nature of the Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K.,
multidisciplinary evaluation before special educa- Bryant, J. & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). Responsiveness
tion, and the function and design of special educa- to intervention: Preventing and identifying math-
tion. For each of these procedural dimensions, we ematics disability. Teaching Exceptional Children,
describe some options for implementation. Then, 37(4), 60-63.
we offer recommendation for how schools might This article describes research-based procedures for
proceed. We close with two case studies illustrating implementing a three-tiered responsiveness-to-inter-
an RTI process that incorporates our recommended vention system to prevent and identify learning dis-
practices. abilities in mathematics. The system is described at
first grade, with an overview of Tier 2 tutoring proce-
2005 dures. The reduction in students experiencing math
disability (MD) is discussed when validated Tier 2
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Responsiveness-
tutoring is implemented. For example, using one re-
to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, poli- sponsiveness-to-intervention method for designating
cymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Chil- MD, in which students are deemed MD if their final
dren, 38(1), 57-61. achievement on first-grade concepts and applications
The authors define responsiveness to intervention by falls below the 10th percentile, prevalence fell from
specifying a four-step process and distinguish be- 9.75 percent without prevention to 5.14 percent with
tween what they believe are “acceptable practices” Tier 2 tutoring. Assuming 53.3 million school-age
and more desirable “best practices.” They then illus- children, this translates into approximately 2.5 mil-
trate how the process might work by presenting a se- lion fewer children experiencing MD.
ries of four “case studies.” They conclude by making
explicit several of their preferences and emphasize

RTI Manual
Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S.R. (2005). Response to in- and local levels; (3) select school districts or school
tervention as a framework for the identification of buildings across the country in which practitioners
learning disabilities. Trainers of School Psycholo- are implementing validated and replicable respon-
gists Forum. siveness-to-intervention (RTI) methods to identify
In this article, a responsiveness-to-intervention ap- students with specific learning disabilities; and (4)
proach to learning disabilities (LD) identification is provide technical assistance and dissemination to a
presented. First, RTI as an LD identification proce- broad array of end users nationally.
dure is explained. Then, the promises and the po- Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004).
tential pitfalls of such an approach are described. Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness
Finally, clarification is provided about how such an
to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria.
approach represents the application of education sci-
ence to practice.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-228.
In this study, we contrasted alternative methods for
McMaster, K.N., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Comp- identifying reading disability (RD) within the con-
ton, D.L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An text of a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) ap-
experimental field trial of identification and inter- proach to identification. The literature suggests four
vention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445- options for classifying response: (1) rate of improve-
ment during tutoring within the top half of tutored
463.
students, (2) performance on a norm-referenced
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy
achievement test within the average range at the
of alternative approaches for providing a second tier
end of tutoring, (3) achieving a criterion-referenced
of intervention with a responsiveness-to-interven-
“benchmark” at the end of tutoring associated with
tion model for preventing and identifying learning
future, (4) demonstrating a strong rate of progress
disabilities. Participants were 232 first-graders who
during tutoring and achieving a strong final score at
were receiving a research-validated form of general
the end of tutoring. For each option, variations on
education reading instruction, Peer-Assisted Learn-
measures and cut-points were considered. We con-
ing Strategies. Children whose improvement over
sidered these four options using data from two RTI
the first semester in response to Tier 1 Peer-Assisted
studies, one at first grade and one at second grade,
Learning Strategies was poor, both in terms of slope
incorporating two criteria for considering the techni-
of improvement during the fall semester and in terms
cal merit of RTI options for designating RD. The first
of end-of-first-semester level, were identified for
criterion was prevalence, with the goal of identifying
Tier 2 intervention. These 56 children were random-
the expected 2 to 5 percent of the population as RD.
ly assigned to remain with unmodified classroom
The second criterion was severity, with the goal of
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, to participate in
identifying children with the largest deficits across
an adapted form of classroom Peer-Assisted Learn-
the greatest range of reading behaviors. In combin-
ing Strategies (which slowed the pace and relied on
ing the criteria, the goal was to identify options that
strong peer tutors), or individual adult tutoring. The
yield the expected proportion of children with the
proportion of nonresponders to Tier 2 intervention
most severe reading difficulties. Findings indicated
suggested that individual adult-directed tutoring was
that options for designating response result in dra-
the most efficacious way of providing Tier 2 inter-
matically different prevalence rates and severity, but
vention.
that a combination of strong slope during tutoring
combined with a strong score at the end of tutoring
2004 may work well. Also, results suggest the potential
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D.D., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). value of focusing on short-term (such as three-week)
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: maintenance immediately after intervention ends to
designate RD.
Multimethod studies of identification and classifica-
tion issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., McMaster, K.L., Yen, L., &
189-195. Svenson, E. (2004). Non-responders: How to find
This paper provides the context for the special issue them? How to help them? What do they mean for
of Learning Disability Quarterly and outlines the Na- special education? Teaching Exceptional Children,
tional Research Center on Learning Disability’s four 36(6), 72-77.
lines of programmatic activities: (1) conduct ran- This piece describes a five-step assessment procedure
domized field trials to explore the relative utility of for classifying children as nonresponders and three
specific identification methods in reading and math; alternative strategies for providing Tier 2 interven-
(2) conduct surveys and focus groups to describe tion for children who are classified as nonresponders
and understand identification practices at the state
to Tier 1. The article summarizes a study in which Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing treatment responsive-
adult tutoring reduced the prevalence of nonresponse ness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning
to Tier 2 by 50 percent, whereas adaptations to the Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172-186.
classroom reading instruction resulted in a reduction Different methods for identifying reading disability
of only 25 percent. Implications for the practice of within the context of a responsiveness-to-interven-
responsiveness-to-intervention for preventing and tion (RTI) approach to identification were explored.
identifying learning disabilities are discussed. We considered (1) rate of improvement in the top
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D. & Compton, D.L. (2004). half of tutored students, (2) performance on a norm-
referenced achievement test within the average range
Monitoring early reading development in first grade:
at the end of tutoring, (3) achieving a criterion-refer-
Word identification fluency versus nonsense word enced benchmark associated with future success at
fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7-21. the end of tutoring, and (4) showing a strong rate of
Response-to-intervention models of learning disabil- progress during tutoring and achieving a strong final
ities identification and prevention require continuing score at the end of tutoring. For each option, varia-
progress monitoring to help determine whether stu- tions on measures and cut-points were considered.
dents are responding to intervention. In this study, The goal was to identify options for designating re-
we examined the technical merits of two contrasting sponse that yield the expected proportion of children
measures for monitoring students’ reading develop- with the most severe reading difficulties. Findings
ment in first grade. The first measure was the widely indicated that options for designating response result
used nonsense word fluency. The other measure was in dramatically different prevalence rates and sever-
curriculum-based measurement’s word identification ity, but that a combination of strong slope during
fluency. At-risk children (n = 151) were assessed (a) tutoring combined with a strong score at the end of
on criterion reading measures in the fall and spring tutoring may work well.
of first grade and (b) on the two progress-monitor-
ing measures each week for seven weeks and twice Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learn-
weekly for an additional 13 weeks. Concurrent and ing disabilities as inadequate response to instruc-
predictive validity for performance level and prediction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
tive validity for the slopes of improvement demon- Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
strated the superiority of word identification fluency In this introduction to the special issue, a response-
over nonsense word fluency. Findings are discussed to-instruction approach to learning disabilities (LD)
in terms of the measures’ utility for identifying chil- identification is discussed. Then, an overview of
dren in need of Tier 2 intervention and for monitor- the promise and the potential pitfalls of such an ap-
ing children’s progress through first grade. proach is provided. The potential benefits include
identification of students based on risk rather than
2003 deficit, early identification and instruction, reduction
of identification bias, and linkage of identification
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. assessment with instructional planning. Questions
(2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention for the concern the integrity of the LD concept, the need for
learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities validated interventions and assessment methods, the
Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171. adequacy of response to instruction as the endpoint
Long-standing concern about how learning disabili- in identification, the appropriate instructional inten-
ties (LD) are defined and identified, coupled with sity, the need for adequately trained personnel, and
recent efforts in Washington, D.C., to eliminate IQ- due process. Finally, an overview of the articles con-
achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, have led stituting the special issue is provided.
to serious public discussion about alternative identifi-
cation methods. The most popular of the alternatives
2002
is responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which
there are two basic versions: the “problem-solving” Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (2002). Treat-
model and the “standard-protocol” approach. The ment validity as a unifying construct for identifying
authors describe both types, review empirical evi- learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
dence bearing on their effectiveness and feasibility, 25(1), 33-45.
and conclude that more needs to be understood be- The purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of
fore RTI may be viewed as a valid means of identify- treatment validity as a framework for identifying
ing students with LD. learning disabilities. In 1995, an eligibility assess-
ment process, rooted within a treatment validity
model, was proposed that (a) examines the level of

RTI Manual
a student’s performance as well as his or her respon- Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K.R., & Finelli, R.
siveness to instruction, (b) reserves judgment about (2004). Hot Math: A Tier 1 Whole-Class Instruction
the need for special education until the effects of in Mathematics Problem Solving for Use in Third
individual student adaptations in the regular class- Grade within a Response-to-Intervention Program
room have been explored, and (c) prior to placement,
for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities
verifies that a special education program enhances
learning. We review the components of this model
(manual). Available from flora.murray@vanderbilt.
and reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of edu.
verifying a special education program’s effective- This manual provides a complete, scripted program
ness prior to placement. for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention
Tier 1 whole-class instruction at third grade in math
problem solving.
Manuals
Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Yen, L., Mc-
Paulsen, K., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L.,
Master, K.L., & Bryant, J.D. (2004). First-Grade
& Bryant, J.D. (2005). First-Grade Tier 2 Tutoring
Tier 2 Tutoring in Reading within a Response-to-In-
in Math within a Response-to-Intervention Program
tervention Program for Preventing and Identifying
for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabili-
Learning Disabilities: A Manual. Available from
ties: A Manual. Available from flora.murray@van-
flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu.
derbilt.edu. This manual provides a complete, scripted program
This manual provides a complete, scripted program
for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention
Tier 2 tutoring intervention at first grade in reading.
Tier 2 tutoring intervention at first grade in math.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., & Hollenbeck,
K.N. (2005). Hot Math Tutoring: A Tier 2 Tutoring
Program in Mathematics Problem Solving for Use
in Third Grade within a Response-to-Intervention
Program for Preventing and Identifying Learning
Disabilities (manual). Available from flora.mur-
ray@vanderbilt.edu.
This manual provides a complete, scripted program
Tier 2 tutoring intervention at third grade in math
problem solving.

Centers for Implementing K-3 Behavior and

Reading Intervention Models
Preventing Reading Difficulties: A Three-Tiered Intervention Model
Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D., & Jeanne Wanzek, Ph.D
University of Texas Center for Reading & Language Arts
Goals intervention. Students who caught up to their peers

The overall goals of this five-year project (2002- left Tier 2 but their progress continued to be moni-
2006) were tored in Tier 1. A similar process was followed for
• to develop, evaluate, and disseminate a school- Tier 3. All students remained in Tier 1 even when
based model for the prevention of reading dis- they were also being served in Tier 2 or Tier 3.
abilities Principal involvement. The role of the princi-
• to develop a three-tiered intervention model to pal cannot be overemphasized. There was a strong
support students at risk for developing reading link between principal leadership and teacher in-
disabilities terest, motivation, and effective implementation of
• to reduce the number of students identified for the program. The researchers and project directors
special education based on reading disabilities. encouraged principals’ involvement in the project
Six elementary schools in a district near Aus- by meeting with them each month, presenting at a
tin, Texas, participated in the research study. Within district-wide principal meeting once each semester,
these schools, more than 80 percent of the students and co-presenting with principals at a conference
were minority students, and more than 80 percent of the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervi-
received free or reduced lunch. sors Association. The project directors also assisted
With this research, Vaughn and her colleagues schools in sustaining the practices implemented in
examined the effectiveness of the implementation the research project.
and sustainability of the three-tier model through Researchers shared standardized test data and
observations, interviews, and field notes. They an- progress monitoring data with school and district
ticipated that this aspect of the evaluation would leaders to inform their decision making regarding
provide valuable information about barriers to and student, teacher, and school progress toward suc-
facilitators of effective implementation. cessful reading outcomes. Researchers provided
One of the three practical outcomes that re- graphs illustrating DIBELS class- and school-wide
searchers anticipated to be of highest importance data for principals and provided school- and district-
to special education and general education teachers level data to district administrators.
was to determine the effectiveness of relatively brief Professional development. Professional devel-
interventions (for example, Tier 2 interventions that opment was extensive and assisted teachers and
comprised approximately 50 sessions for 20 to 30 grade-level teams in their understanding and use
minutes per day) compared with the effectiveness of of progress monitoring information. Professional
more intensive interventions in Tier 3 (100 sessions development also assisted individual teachers and
for 50 to 60 minutes/day). principals in interpretation, grouping, and instruc-
tional practices related to students most at risk for
Overview reading difficulties.
For this research study, three intervention lev- Session topics that related to Tier 1 included
els were implemented across kindergarten through DIBELS for progress monitoring, phonological
third grade to prevent reading difficulties. All levels awareness, classroom behavior management, us-
included screening, systematic progress monitoring, ing assessment information to group students for
and the use of scientifically based reading instruc- instruction, differentiated instruction, using data to
tion. Students who did not make adequate progress make instructional decisions, implementation of K-
in Tier 1 (general education) received Tier 2 reading PALS (Peer Assisted Learning Strategies), teacher
RTI Manual
partnering, focus group discussions, collaborative content previously developed by the Vaughn Gross
strategic reading, vocabulary instruction, advanced Center for Reading and Language Arts (VGCRLA)
word study, effective instructional practices, and or- were shared during professional development ses-
ganizing and designing the core reading block. sions. In addition, in kindergarten, the curriculum
Professional development sessions that related included Phonemic Awareness in Young Children
specifically to Tier 2 included phonological/phone- and K-PALS; in first grade, PALS; and in second
mic awareness, letter and sound identification, pho- grade, partner reading.
nics and word recognition, fluency, word reading, Benchmark assessment data (DIBELS) were
sentence/story reading, passage reading, and com- collected at the beginning, middle, and end of the
prehension. year to identify students who needed intervention.
Sessions related to Tier 3 included sound review, Teachers used DIBELS to gather progress-monitor-
phonics and word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, ing data to inform and adjust their reading instruc-
passage reading, and comprehension. tion. After DIBELS assessments, teachers were
Focus groups and coaching. All participating given a bar graph that indicated DIBELS scores for
teachers engaged once a year in focus groups to individual students. Tier 1 coordinators met with
provide feedback about what was helpful and what the teachers and provided instructional recommen-
was difficult with regard to the three-tier model. dations to increase student progress. Teachers also
Researchers also wanted to determine the effective- completed the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)
ness of coaching and in-classroom support for en- for students.
hancing implementation, progress monitoring, and
ultimately student outcomes. Rigorous training and Decision Rules For Tier 2 And Tier 3
reliability procedures were used to prepare three-tier Instruction
project testers. For purposes of research, the kindergartners and
first graders whose response to general education
Tier 1 instruction was not adequate received additional in-
Tier 1 instruction took place in the general edu- struction in Tier 2 from researchers. No student in
cation classroom with the general education teacher. kindergarten or first grade received Tier 3 instruction.
Reading instruction took place for at least 90 min- Students in second and third grade who did not re-
utes each day, was scientifically based, and empha- spond adequately to general education received Tier
sized the five critical elements of reading. Curricu- 3 instruction from researchers. The school provided
lum and instruction in kindergarten through second Tier 2 instruction for second- and third-graders need-
grade included a variety of strategies, and ideas ing that level of instruction. Tables 5.30 and 5.31 de-
based on scientifically based reading research and scribe qualification and exit criteria for Tiers 2 and 3.
Table 5.30. Tier 2 Qualification and Exit Criteria

Semester Entry Exit
Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
Kindergarten (Spring) Letter Name Fluency < 23
(PSF) > 30
1. Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 1) Nonsense Word Fluency > 30 and
< 10 and Nonsense Word Fluency = Oral Reading Fluency > 20
First Grade (Fall) 13 – 23 or
or 2) Oral Reading Fluency > 8
2) Nonsense Word Fluency < 13
1) Nonsense Word Fluency < 30 and
Oral Reading Fluency < 20
First Grade (Spring) Oral Reading Fluency > 34
or
2) Oral Reading Fluency < 8

Table 5.31. Tier 3 Qualification and Exit Criteria

Semester Entry Exit
Oral Reading Fluency < 27 and at
Second Grade (Fall) Oral Reading Fluency ≥ 68
least one dose of Tier2 in first grade
Did not exit from Fall Tier 3
Second Grade
(Students who qualify for Spring Tier Oral Reading Fluency ≥ 70
(Spring)
3 must have qualified for Fall Tier 3)
Oral Reading Fluency < 77 and at
Third Grade (Fall) least one dose of Tier 3 in second Oral Reading Fluency ≥ 80
grade
Tier 2 dents could either exit Tier 2, repeat Tier 2, enter

Instruction and interventions. Tier 2 interven- Tier 3, or be referred to special services. Pacing was
tions, when needed, began immediately after iden- matched to each student’s skill level, and each stu-
tification with benchmark testing and were coor- dent had multiple opportunities to participate and
dinated with the general education teacher. The respond.
interventions emphasized the five critical elements Progress monitoring. Teachers used DIBELS
of beginning reading and were systematic, explicit, benchmarks and progress monitoring (assessment
and included modeling, multiple examples, and cor- data collected three times each year) to inform de-
rective feedback. Reading interventions included cisions about grouping and to adjust their reading
phonological/phonemic awareness, letter and sound instruction. In addition, the teachers monitored the
identification, phonics and word recognition, flu- progress of students in Tier 2 every week to ensure
ency, word reading, sentence/story reading, passage adequate progress on the targeted skill.
reading, and comprehension. All teachers were trained in the administration
Personnel. For this research, the personnel pro- and interpretation of DIBELS. (Researchers assist in
viding Tier 2 instruction were graduate research as- the collection and interpretation of DIBELS.) Teach-
sistants and full-time staff hired for tutoring; all had ers also completed the Social Skills Rating System
a college degree, some were certified teachers, and (SSRS) on students.
all were trained before beginning teaching. During
hiring, Vaughn’s team looked for tutors with previ- Tier 3
ous experience teaching and working in schools, Qualification and exit criteria. A student was
knowledge of reading instruction, and a willingness selected for Tier 3 instruction in one of three ways:
to implement a standard protocol intervention. To be 1. If progress was not sufficient after two rounds
considered “qualified,” personnel had to be trained of Tier 2 instruction even after adjustments to
to 100 percent implementation fidelity. (Tier 2 in- instruction
terventionists implementing the research treatment 2. If a marked lack of progress was evident after
did not attend the Tier 1 professional development only one round of Tier 2 and further Tier 2 in-
sessions.) struction was deemed insufficient
Setting/time/pacing. Tier 2 treatment/tutoring 3. If the student required re-entry into Tier 3 after
sessions were always held outside the general edu- a previous exit
cation classroom (in pod areas or in a separate class- A student exited Tier 3 when she or he reached
room, for example). One “round” of Tier 2 instruc- the benchmark on the targeted skills. A student who
tion lasted for 10 to 12 weeks (about 50 sessions), had previously exited Tier 3 re-entered as needed.
with each session lasting at least 30 minutes. This Instruction and interventions. The program for
was in addition to the 90 minutes of core reading Tier 3 was scientifically based and emphasized the
instruction provided in the general education class- critical elements of reading for students with read-
room. Teacher-to-student ratios were either one-to- ing difficulties or disabilities. Tier 3 instruction
four or one-to-five. After one round of Tier 2, stu- was sustained, intensive, and strategic; it was spe-

RTI Manual
cifically designed and customized for small group adequate progress and learning and was based on
(one-to-three) reading instruction. Interventions for the grade level of the students. Phonemic segmenta-
Tier 3 included sound review, phonics and word rec- tion fluency and nonsense word fluency were used
ognition, vocabulary, fluency, passage reading, and in the fall of first grade, and nonsense word fluency
comprehension. and oral reading fluency were used in the spring of
When a student “repeated” or got a “second first grade. Oral reading fluency is used in second
dose” of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention, the interven- and third grade. At each level of the three-tier mod-
tion was continued with the same intensity, at the el, there was documentation of the individual char-
student’s skill level, with the speed of progression acteristics, background, school experiences, and
being determined by student mastery, as was the outcomes of students who did, and did not, make
case for the first “dose.” adequate progress. (See Table 5.31 on page 5.73 for
Interventions were not scheduled during core qualification and exit criteria for Tier 3.)
reading instruction, and teachers selected the times
for interventions according to times in the classroom Fidelity of Implementation
that they thought students could make up work. Fidelity measures/observations – Tier 1. Fidel-
Personnel. Qualified personnel for Tier 3 were ity of implementation was monitored for all inter-
classroom teachers, reading specialists, or outside ventions. To monitor implementation, the research-
interventionists. In the research treatment, the quali- ers used classroom observations (a strictly passive
fied personnel were graduate research assistants activity for the researcher) and student data. The
and full-time staff hired for tutoring. All had col- researchers reviewed several tools for collecting
lege degrees, some were certified teachers, and all data on teachers’ delivery of reading instruction and
were trained to 100 percent implementation fidelity selected the revised Instructional Content Emphasis
before beginning teaching. Researchers looked for (ICE-R) instrument. This is a valid and reliable ob-
tutors with previous experience teaching and work- servation instrument used to systematically catego-
ing in the schools, knowledge of reading instruction, rize and code the content of reading and language
and a willingness to implement a standard treatment arts instruction and can be used to collect data help-
protocol. ful in answering the following questions: What is
Setting/time/pacing. The setting for Tier 3 in- being taught? How is it being taught? How well is it
struction was always outside the general education being taught? What is being used to teach? Reliabil-
classroom (in pod areas or separate classrooms, for ity checks were done before instructional methods
example). Each group consisted of two or three stu- were used in the schools, and frequent discussions
dents. Tier 3 instruction was nearly always one 50- or between observers ensured that instruction was cod-
60-minute session each day for 100 days (across the ed reliably across observers. During observations,
school year). Students could exit after 50 sessions. Tier 1 coordinators used a checklist of key features
For a couple of groups of students, Tier 3 comprised (the ICE-R). Data from the ICE-R determined fidel-
two sessions each day (30 minutes per session) for ity.
100 days across the school year. Informal classroom observations and visits.
Number of cycles. Students could have a num- School site coordinators visited the teachers in their
ber of Tier 3 intervention cycles. Students in the classrooms on a regular basis and provided follow-
second grade design might have experienced Tier 1 up to the professional development sessions (for ex-
plus Tier 3 in consecutive semesters if the assess- ample, modeling strategies). During informal visits,
ments at the beginning of each semester determined school site coordinators did not complete the ICE-R
that they were eligible. and were able to be actively involved (for example,
A student who had received previous Tier 3 modeling a lesson). Informal visits usually lasted
instruction and had exited could re-enter Tier 3 as only 15 to 30 minutes. Field notes or short observa-
needed. Students could exit from Tier 3 intervention tion checklists were completed after each informal
during the middle of the school year only if they observation. Data collected during these visits were
demonstrated grade-level performance on oral read- then compiled with the ICE-R data to create a com-
ing fluency measures. plete picture of the instruction each teacher provided
Progress monitoring. Progress monitoring oc- at Tier I.
curred twice a month on the targeted skill to ensure Classroom observation data were collected

three times for current intervention teachers and Disability Determination

once for other participating teachers to document This model was not used for specific learn-
reading instruction and the accurate implementation ing disability determination and special education
of strategies addressed in professional development eligibility. The three-tier project focused on effec-
activities. tiveness for early identification and remediation of
Fidelity measures for Tier 2 and Tier 3. For students at risk for reading problems and students
Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, two observers were with disabilities. It allowed stakeholders to examine
trained on specific fidelity measures using videos. the reading profiles of students later identified for
The observers then used live observations for reli- special education, including the amount and effec-
ability. Inter-rater reliability for both intervention tiveness of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions provided.
measures was above 90 percent. Reliability was also Although this model is not used to determine SLD
discussed at length in training. Fidelity checklists eligibility, the researchers established a well-orga-
were completed three times per semester for each nized and sophisticated data management system
tutor. that allowed ready access to academic information
about specific students.
RTI as an Effective Prevention System
For this research, the reading skills of all stu- Due Process Procedures
dents were assessed. Comparison of control and ex- The project was not involved with due process
perimental groups indicated that the three-tier mod- procedures.
el improved the reading outcomes of students par-
ticipating in Tier 1 interventions and decreased the
number of students in need of Tier 2 interventions.
Implementation of Tier 2 intervention for struggling
readers was also shown to improve student reading
outcomes and allow most students to exit interven-
tion.
Parent Involvement
Parents were provided information and training
to facilitate active involvement in student reading
development. Researchers planned to inform and
train parents by using an enhanced web site, litera-
cy-related articles in school and district newletters,
and informational workshops at individual schools.
Researchers also considered giving a parent survey.

RTI Manual
Resource List: Research Examples

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Math FLASH (Vanderbilt University)
(CTOPP) (Pearson Assessment) This computer software program was developed by
http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/ L.S. Fuchs, C.L. Hamlett and S. Powell in 2003 while
The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Process- conducting elementary education-related research. It
ing (CTOPP) assesses phonological awareness, pho- is available from L.S. Fuchs, 328 Peabody, Vander-
nological memory, and rapid naming. Persons with bilt University, Nashville, TN 37203.
deficits in one or more of these kinds of phonological
processing abilities may have more difficulty learn- Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) and
ing to read than those who do not. Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies
(K-PALS) (Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) (a prog- Research on Human Development)
ress monitoring method) http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/kennedy/pals/
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a prog- http://www.peerassistedlearningstrategies.net
ress monitoring method that uses specific measures K-PALS, PALS Reading, and PALS Math enable
to enhance student performance most often in the ar- classroom teachers to accommodate diverse learners
eas of reading, mathematics, written expression and and help a large population of these students achieve
spelling. The specific measures criteria includes: re- success. PALS Reading and PALS Math have been
liable and valid generalized performance indicators, approved by the U.S. Department of Education’s
frequent administration through use of short duration Program Effectiveness Panel for inclusion in the Na-
assessment, direct and repeated student performance tional Diffusion Network on effective educational
measurement, multiple assessment forms that are practices.
inexpensive, and sensitivity to student achievement
changes over time. Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Pearson
Assessments)
DIBELS (University of Oregon) http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/
http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) was devel-
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy oped by Frank Gresham and Stephen Elliot. It is a
Skills (DIBELS) are a set of standardized, individu- nationally standardized series of questionnaires that
ally administered measures of early literacy devel- obtain information on the social behaviors of chil-
opment designed to be short (one minute) fluency dren and adolescents from teachers, parents, and the
measures used to regularly monitor the development students themselves. It can be used in third through
of pre-reading and early reading skills. 12th grades.
Instructional Content Emphasis (revised) (ICE-

R) (M.S. Edmonds & K.L. Briggs)
An observation instrument used to systematically
categorize and code the content of reading and lan-
guage arts instruction. The four dimensions for de-
scriptive data include: (A) main instructional catego-
ry, (B) instructional subcategory, (C) student group-
ing, and (D) materials, with three additional coding
categories: instructional focus, student engagement,
and instructional quality. A more detailed description
of ICE-R can be found in Edmonds, M.S. & Briggs,
K.L. (2003). Instructional content Emphasis Instru-
ment. In S.R. Vaughn and K.L. Briggs (Eds.) Read-
ing in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching
and learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.


RTI Manual
This publication is in the public domain. Au-

thorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is
granted. While permission to reprint this publi-
cation is not necessary, the citation should be:
Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McK-

night, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to interven-
tion (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities.

RTI Manual Case Studies

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RTI Manual Case Studies

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Section 5

School Examples, Student Case

• School Examples, page Overview

5.2 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Background view their RTI procedures as a “work in prog-

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.3

Overview and demographics

Percentage of Student Population

Overview and demographics Cornell Elementary School

sists of 440 students in preschool through third

Within the core curriculum, progress monitoring Total enrollment=440, Pre-K-5

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.5

5.6 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Dalton Gardens Elementary School

Overview and demographics

Percentage of Student Population

The number of classes for each grade is as follows:

Reading groups Progress monitoring at Tier 3

5.8 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Tiered Service Delivery

Overview and demographics Rosewood Elementary School

Percentage of Student Population

Total enrollment=549, K-5

5.10 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Northstar Elementary School

Overview & demographics

grade. Each grade level comprises three classes. Of

Tier 1: core classroom instruction Total enrollment=350, K-5

5.12 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

Data-Based Decision Making

Overview and demographics

Percentage of Student Population

Students are identified as “advanced/benchmark,” range on progress monitoring measures. A student

Tualatin Elementary School

Overview and demographics

in kindergarten through fifth grade, with three to

Effective Behavior and Instructional Total enrollment=522, K-5

5.14 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.15

Overview and demographics

Percentage of Student Population

The number of classes for each grade is as follows:

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.17

Jefferson Elementary School

Overview and demographics Jefferson Elementary School

Percentage of Student Population

Jefferson Elementary’s responsiveness-to-inter- Total enrollment=500, K-5

5.18 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

The Reading Plus Partnership Pledge

As a student I promise to...

As a parent I promise to...

As a teacher I promise to...

As a principal I promise to...

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.19

Tualatin Elementary School

Overview and demographics

in kindergarten through fifth grade, with three to

Ensuring that parents feel welcome and Total enrollment=522, K-5

5.20 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006 5.21

Resource List: School Examples

5.22 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006

DIBELS (University of Oregon) • Harcourt Holistic Assessment Books provide au-

Fox in a Box (CTB/ McGraw-Hill) Houghton Mifflin Reading Series (Houghton