Response To Intervention: - DOC by J2LqIq


									                     RTI in Middle and High Schools
                                 By William N. Bender, Ph.D.,
               (800) 991-1114:

             Dr. Bender’s bio is available online at
     See the Youtube video of Dr. Bender: RTI in High School: Same or Different?
                   On the Youtube site, type in: DrWilliamBender

I.     Problems in RTI Implementation in Departmentalized Schools
       A. Kids change classes in departmentalized middle and high schools, and teachers may
          only have a particular class for 45- or 55-minute periods. Can a biology, algebra II, or
          health teacher really be expected to put the rest of the class on hold, and pull six or
          eight students aside for a Tier 2 intervention for 20 or 30 minutes daily? None of the
          available models for RTI implementation in the higher grades actually suggest that.
       B. There is no research on RTI in departmentalized schools available, so no research-
          based models for RTI implementation in the upper grades can be identified.
       C. What is available are model programs around the nation that have wrestled with this set
          of implementation issues, and RTI proponents can report on what they are doing.
       D. Also, several proponents of RTI have written books on RTI implementation in middle
          and high schools. D. P. Gibbs published a book in 2009, the National Center on
          Response to Intervention published some guidelines in May of 2010. I recently
          completed a book on this topic (Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press).

II. What the Model Middle/High RTI Programs Are Doing
       A. Virtually all Tier 1 intervention descriptions of RTI in middle and high schools are
          maintaining the three-tier pyramid of interventions as the basis for their RTI.
       B. Virtually all Tier 1 intervention descriptions of RTI in middle and high schools stress
          highly differentiated instruction as the basis for all Tier 1 instruction. Without
          differentiation in Tier 1, there is not a solid basis for Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions.
       C. Virtually all Tier 1 intervention descriptions of RTI in middle and high schools have
          implemented targeted screening and not universal screening. The elementary reading
          model stressed individual screening for all students at least three times each year.
          Instead, most middle and high schools use “targeted screening.”
          1. By the time a student reaches middle or high school, we have a catalogue of that
               student’s academic performance to use. Some programs have used teacher
               nomination in conjunction with statewide assessment scores to place students in
               Tier 2 interventions.
          2. Screening all students in the upper grades using individually administered
               screening assessments is probably a waste of resources (particularly for students
               scoring above 30 percent or 50 percent on group-administered statewide

         3.   Multiple screenings may be more important in early reading/math than in later
              grades. A four-month deficit in math in grade 1 is much more devastating than a
              four-month deficit in grade 9 mathematics.
         4.   Targeted screening involved using state assessment scores to identify all students
              below a certain percentile, and then using another screening measure or teacher
              recommendation to place students in Tier 2 supplemental interventions.

     D. More than 50 percent of Tier 2 intervention descriptions in middle and high schools
        involve some type of additional “intervention period” time slot during the day for
        additional, supplemental instruction in core areas. This may involve scheduling
        struggling students into a second period of algebra I or general mathematics.
     E. One modification of the intervention period idea is “doubling” the class. Some
        programs have “doubled” the mathematics period. They hold struggling students in that
        class for an additional period (with reduced pupil–teacher ratio, and the same teacher
        working with struggling students). This is different from using an intervention period
        taught by a different mathematics teacher.
     F. The other method involves restructuring a support program that is already available
        (e.g, math labs, extra math intervention periods, double periods in algebra, or reading
        skills labs) as Tier 2 interventions. More information on how that might be done is
        presented below.
     G. Virtually all Tier 2 intervention descriptions in middle and high schools provide RTI
        interventions in reading (provided by the language arts faculty) and in mathematics
        (typically algebra I or general mathematics provided by the mathematics faculty).
     H. Note that in most middle and high school RTI programs, while Tier 1 instruction may
        stress tutorial assistance in subject area content, virtually all Tier 2 and Tier 3
        interventions described to date for middle and high schools stress specific curricula in
        reading or mathematics.

III. What Is a Tier 2 Intervention for Middle and High Schools?
While some state RTI guidelines have defined specific requirements for Tier 2 interventions,
most states did not. Given that no federal government agency has defined Tier 2, many educators
are left with the question of what exactly constitutes a Tier 2 intervention. Again, only research
on RTI in lower grades, coupled with model programs in middle and high schools, can provide
guidance on that question.
      A. Tier 2 and 3 interventions must be intensive enough to change a student’s life! We must
          change the trajectory of learning from one leading to failure to one leading to success.
          Thus, we need systematic, targeted, focused interventions that result in improvement in
          student achievement. Not all current academic support programs will meet these
          intervention requirements, but current support programs can be restructured to do so in
          many cases, and that restructuring should be a priority of middle and high schools.
      B. The intensity of an intervention can be documented by a number of factors:
          1. Time for the intervention: Tier 2 interventions should be described in terms of

              minutes per day, days per week, and number of weeks.
         2.   Pupil–teacher ratio (some states provided guidance of 6:1 as a maximum): Some
              upper-grade Tier 2 interventions increase that to 10:1 or 12:1.
         3.   Use of a designated, research-proven, supplemental curriculum at Tiers 2 and 3
         4.   Continue supplemental instruction over several grading periods to help students
              catch up with peers.
         5.   All of these factors should result in clear indications that Tier 2 interventions in a
              given school are more intensive than Tier 1 instruction, and that Tier 3
              interventions are more intensive than Tier 2.
         6.   Using a planning grid for RTI implementation at the school level that focuses on
              these indicators of intensity can help a faculty plan and develop successful RTI

    C. Most programs did use benchmarking progress monitoring assessments that are
       typically done every two weeks during the Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. This is
       similar to the RTI primary and elementary models. Frequent progress monitoring in
       Tier 2 and 3 is critical to document the impact of the intervention for a given student. I
       frequently see the use of AIMSWeb as a schoolwide or districtwide progress
       monitoring system in mathematics. It allows input of specific data from screenings,
       state assessments, behavioral infractions, and weekly progress monitoring.
    D. There is a clear tendency to not assume that all current academic support programs are
       Tier 2 programs. Rather, current academic support programs (e.g., tutoring in subject
       areas one period per week or afternoon support in homework) should be continued as
       valid Tier 1 differentiated support for students, but in many cases such support
       programs are not intensive enough (given existing research in lower grades and model
       upper-grade programs) to be considered Tier 2 interventions in the RTI context.
    E. Many middle and secondary schools have access to computerized curricula that are
       very appropriate for Tier 2 or 3 interventions. When using these programs, many
       students can be placed in the math lab, and each will receive a totally individualized
       intervention program. Use of research-supported technology programs for these upper
       tiers (or even Tier 1 support) in encouraged. Computerized curricula frequently used
       include: Fast ForWord, Academy of Reading, Academy of Math, Plato, and others.
    F. What particular hard-copy curricula are currently used? While many supplemental
       curricula are available, here are several that are frequently utilized, or particularly
       aimed at middle and secondary learners. These include: Learning Strategies
       Curriculum, Algebra Rescue, Accelerated Math for Interventions, ReadWell, Read
       Naturally, Transition Mathematics, and Corrective Reading. Caution: Many curricula
       range across grade levels (though some terminate at grade 8).

IV. My Recommendations for Moving Beyond the RTI Pyramid
    A.   Reshuffle all resources as necessary to make RTI effective.
    B.   Use a three-tier model with Tiers 2 and 3 to begin supplemental intervention tiers.
    C.   Create a school-based RTI taskforce (or use a professional learning community).
    D.   Tiers 1 and 2 are the job of the general education teacher, with support. Do weekly

         progress monitoring in Tiers 2 and 3, and teachers must provide a data chart prior to
         SST team meeting.
    E.   Tier 3 should be a function of the SST and another person should do that intervention.
    F.   Implement technology for Tier 2 and 3 whenever possible.
    G.   Observe for treatment fidelity in Tiers 2 and 3.
    H.   Use the planning grid each year for the first couple of RTI years. Work through this
         with your faculty.
    I.   Implement RTI as one way to address AYP!
    J.   Prepare for due process challenges by setting high standards.
    K.   Bring in an outside person for the first facultywide workshop on RTI.
    L.   Foster the approach that this is teaching as we’ve always wanted to teach! This is
         teaching for the 21st century/school improvement!

V. Tasks of the RTI Taskforce or Professional Learning Community
    A. Conduct a school inventory (training, resources, and curricula that may be used for
    B. Discuss reshuffling resources at the school level.
    C. Conduct RTI faculty workshops (multiple times per year).
    D. Identify and review helpful websites for RTI.
    E. Plan ongoing professional development around RTI for the next three to five years.

VI. Tier 2 and 3 Recommendations for High Schools and Middle Schools
    A. Use technology whenever possible (Academy of Reading, Fast ForWord, Read
    B. Math: Academy of Math, Accelerated Math, Transitional Math
    C. Common assessments: DIBELS, mCLASS, AimsWEB
    D. Curriculum in a box: ReadWell, SRA, AR
    E. Middle and secondary levels: Many of those mentioned above can be used for lower
       functioning kids. Corrective Reading from SRA, or Algebra Rescue
    F. Middle/secondary schools: Some have used the Learning Strategies Curriculum from
       Don Deshler at the University of Kansas.

                 References: RTI in Middle and High Schools
Bender, W. N. (2009). Beyond the RTI pyramid: Solutions for the first years of implementation.
      Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Bender, W. N. (2011). RTI in middle and high schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at
       approaches to tiered interventions. National High School Center. Retrieved from

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R., (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
      work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Geisick, K., Graving-Reyes, P., & DeRuvo, S. (2008). RTI in a secondary schools setting:
       Riverbank High School story—implementing the content literacy continuum [Webinar
       presentation]. Retrieved from

Gibbs, D. P. (2009). RTI in middle and high school: Strategies and structures for literacy success.
       Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Greene, J. F. (1999). LANGUAGE! The comprehensive literacy curriculum (2nd ed.). Longmont,
      CO: Sopris West.

Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L. (2008). Implementation of response to intervention a middle
      school: Challenges and potential benefits. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3),

Lolich, E., Stover, G., Barker, N., Jolley, M., VanKleek, L., & Kendall, S. (2010). Response to
        intervention: Helping all students succeed [Video]. Retrieved from

National Center on Response to Intervention (2010). Tiered interventions in high schools: Using
       preliminary “lessons learned” to guide ongoing discussion. Retrieved from

                        Appendix A:
RTI Models for Departmentalized High School and Middle Schools
Model A: RTI Implementation at Berkeley Springs High School

Resources Restructuring: Resources of the school will frequently have to be restructured to
facilitate RTI (Gibbs, 2009). At Berkeley Springs High School, the administration scheduled the
school classes such that teachers had a common planning period. Also, several teachers received
specific training on the research-proven reading program, Corrective Reading (mcgraw-, that was selected for use. This curriculum is designed to
assist older readers who demonstrate a lack of reading skills. Finally, teachers were requested to
help identify students who, they believed, needed supplemental assistance, and a total of 67
students were tentatively identified. Those students then received several reading assessments to
document their specific reading problems. All of these activities represent RTI tasks that will
require some refocusing of resources at the school level.

 Screening and Progress Monitoring: In this example, teacher recommendations were used to
select students who needed assistance, and those students were then given several reading
assessments. Thus, no universal screening was undertaken beyond the statewide assessments.
More frequent benchmarking assessment was undertaken to monitor individual students’
progress at the Tier 2 level.

The Tier 1 Instruction: Each general education teacher was responsible for Tier 1 instruction in
his or her subject area. Also, each teacher was expected to provide traditional reading instruction
as appropriate, embedded within his or her specific instructional area. In one sense, some might
suggest that this is not different from what general education high school teachers were doing
previously. However, given the school’s increased focus on reading intervention, it is quite likely
that many general education teachers spent some additional time on reading skills within their
subject content areas.

The Tier 2 Intervention: Students who needed a Tier 2 intervention would receive additional
reading instruction embedded within their Tier 1 classes, as well as additional in-class resource
assistance. While such assistance might be provided by the general education teacher, many
special education teachers, functioning as inclusion teachers, might also provide that additional
reading instruction. Also at the Tier 2 level, students underwent benchmark assessments multiple
times throughout the school year. Thus, their progress in reading was followed more closely that
of Tier 1 students.

The Tier 3 Intervention: For students whose reading skills did not progress using the Tier 2
intervention, a Tier 3 intervention was initiated. Students in Tier 3 continued to participate in all
Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions but also were provided an additional supplemental intervention
scheduled at a different point in the school day. In that Tier 3 intervention, the supplemental
reading curriculum was utilized. A computerized reading program was also utilized for some

students in the Tier 3 intervention level. This intervention was provided by reading coaches,
special education teachers, and/or other educators, rather than the general education teachers

Results: The educators at Berkeley Springs High School were very pleased with the results of
this intervention after the first year. Reading improvement was noted in all three tiers, though
students in Tier 1, as one might expect, demonstrated the lowest rate of improvement. At the Tier
2 level, improvement in various reading skills ranged from a half year in reading fluency to over
a year in comprehension. At the Tier 3 level, the improvements were even more dramatic, based
on a year-long intervention. Reading fluency for those low-skill readers jumped from a 4.7
reading equivalency to 6.6, which was almost two full grade levels. Word identification moved
over two grade levels, from 3.8 to 5.9, and reading comprehension skills jumped from 3.5 to 5.4
for students in the Tier 3 intervention. The article did not report on other possible outcomes, such
as how many students were ultimately referred for special education, or how this intervention
may have impacted the dropout rate at the school.

Model B: The Long Beach Unified School District Interventions Initiative

Resources Restructuring: The Long Beach Unified School District has long committed
resources to assist students who are behind in their academic progress at the end of grade 8. In
fact, the district has been doing this so long that little information is available on resources
committed to this intervention model; for educators in that district, this is simply best teaching
practice (Gibbs, 2009). With that noted, some resource re-allocations can be noted, including
assignment of English/language teachers to double blocks of instruction with the same group of
struggling learners and purchases of supplemental curricula for basic skills.

Screening and Progress Monitoring: A universal screening procedure is undertaken at the end
of grade 8, based on a student’s state assessment scores, course grades, and for some students,
additional individual assessment as needed. The additional assessment used is a component of
the Language! Curriculum (Greene, 1999), which is a research-proven reading and literacy
curriculum that has been adopted by that state and that district (see a description at

Frequent progress monitoring within various interventions classes is based on the intervention
curriculum utilized. In addition to the Language! Curriculum (Greene, 1999), the LiPs
Curriculum by P. C. Lindamood and P. Lindamood, which is marketed by ProEd, is also utilized
( In Tier 3, as described below, the various
assessments from these two curricula are used multiple times throughout the year to monitor
progress of the students after the student is placed in a supplemental intervention.

The Tier 1 Instruction: Each general education teacher in the high school is expected to
differentiate instruction based on the needs of the individual students within the class. Further,
consistent with best practices, each teacher is expected to provide reading instruction embedded
within his or her specific instructional area.

The Tier 2 Intervention: While the Long Beach Unified District does not specifically
differentiate between Tiers 2 and 3 (remember this system predated the three-tier RTI model),
there are distinctions made based on the initial assessments of the students. Students entering
high school that are one to two years behind in reading receive Tier 1 instruction supplemented
by an additional literacy workshop course. No specific curriculum is associated with that course,
but students are provided scaffolded instruction and other content enhancements related to the
core curriculum.

The Tier 3 Intervention: For students who enter high school two or more years behind in
reading, a double block of language/English is provided that includes the same core
language/English course all students take, as well as a parallel period of intensive reading and
literacy instruction. This is the most intensive intervention tier, and thus involves instruction
based on one of the research-proven curricula mentioned above.

Note in this example that it is possible for students to enter this most intensive intervention
without having been subjected to the Tier 2 intervention (Duffy, 2007; Gibbs, 2009). However,
this entire intervention system predated the current RTI models, so caution concerning over-
interpretation on this point is warranted.

Results: The results described for this program are reported in terms of percentage of students
who are referred for special education services (i.e., students for whom these interventions were
not successful), rather than in reading score gains, as in the previous case study. Data have
shown that there has been a marked reduction in the number of students referred for special
education services (Duffy, 2007; Gibbs, 2009). Nationally, 12 percent to 14 percent of students
are ultimately referred for special education, whereas, in Long Beach, that comparable
percentage is only 7 percent, suggesting a 50 percent reduction in special education referrals
resulting from this multi-tiered intervention system. Clearly, more learning problems are being
successfully addressed within the general education curriculum, representing a success for all
educators of the Long Beach Unified School District (Duffy, 2007; Gibbs, 2009).

Model C: RTI Implementation at Cheyenne Mountain Junior High

Resources Restructuring: Cheyenne Mountain Junior High had previously implemented a multi-
tier intervention system for schoolwide behavioral support, and building on that multi-tier system
proved to be the best approach to RTI implementation for this faculty (Johnson & Smith, 2008).
Because of that background, the entire faculty was already aware of, and to some degree
practicing, a three-tier, increasingly intensive intervention system for reducing behavior
problems. Thus it was merely a matter of extending that same concept to academic problems
(Johnson & Smith, 2008).

The faculty chose to build a bank of academic interventions to address students’ individual needs
in reading, and the faculty decided to use the existing problem-solving team at the school to
assist teachers in selecting the appropriate academic intervention for each struggling student.

Finally, the school had already implemented a professional development plan based on
professional learning communities as a school improvement approach (DuFour, DuFour, &
Eaker, 2008). That professional learning community dedicated itself to effective RTI
implementation over a period of several years.

Screening and Progress Monitoring: No universal screening measures were available when
Cheyenne Mountain faculty implemented RTI (Johnson & Smith, 2008), so as in the examples
above, students were initially identified for support services through teacher referrals, parent
referrals, and/or scores on state assessments. The school faculty set a goal of developing
curriculum-based measures in the basic skill areas of reading, mathematics, and writing, as well
as establishing a data-based decision-making process for inclusion in the more intensive Tier 2
and Tier 3 interventions. Also, the school faculty chose to undertake universal screening three
times per year, as is generally recommended for primary and elementary grades (Bender, 2009;
Johnson & Smith, 2008). During the first year, the school also implemented a commercially
available individual screening measure in both reading and mathematics, and those data were
compiled on a student data sheet for each student in the RTI process.

The Tier 1 Instruction: Differentiated instruction was stressed in each class at the school in
order to ensure that the general education classes continued to meet the needs of 80 percent or
more of the student body (Johnson & Smith, 2008). In the English classes, for example,
differentiated instruction was addressed by offering a range of options for completing various
assignments. Options for completing a book report included writing an essay, developing a
scrapbook, writing a newspaper article, or creating a video productions. The faculty noted that
completion of these assignments increased considerably when students were offered a variety of
choices as to the format for their work (Johnson & Smith, 2008).

The Tier 2 Intervention: Because of limited resources, this school chose to aim the initial efforts
exclusively at reading. Tier 2 interventions were provided via supplemental help in the general
education class, including options such as enhanced instruction, differentiated assignments,
modifications of assignments, and various other accommodations. Targeted, small-group
instruction was also emphasized.

Next, various elective courses were developed or redesigned to provide further Tier 2 instruction,
including the school’s literacy lab, which was taught by the school’s reading specialist. That
program uses the Language! Curriculum (Greene, 1999), which was described above. The school
has a long-term goal of developing similar lab electives in both mathematics and writing
(Johnson & Smith, 2008).

The Tier 3 Intervention: At Cheyenne Mountain Junior High, Tier 3 interventions were
generally synonymous with special education services (Johnson & Smith, 2008). Thus, at
Cheyenne Mountain, students in Tier 3 would be receiving inclusive special education services
in the general education classroom, consisting of additional tutoring by the special education
teacher and/or other small-group or individual educational assistance.

Results: The educators at Cheyenne Mountain Junior High note that approximately 50 percent of
the students receiving Tier 2 intervention in the literacy lab have made significant gains in
reading comprehension, and have improved their grades in other courses substantially (Johnson
& Smith, 2008). Also, like many middle and high schools that have implemented RTI, this
faculty found that the number of students requiring special education services has been
substantially reduced (Johnson & Smith, 2008).

However, one of the most profound results noted by this faculty was the change in school culture
that resulted from a consensus effort to develop an effective RTI procedure to assist struggling
students. The teachers themselves state this best: “Without the interventions of RTI, and the
focus of developing a professional learning community, the school would not have seen the
concerted effort on implementation of such instructional practices as differentiation across the
entire school” (Johnson & Smith, 2008).

Model D: The RTI Model From Tigard High School

Resources Restructuring: Tigard High School in Portland, Oregon, operates on a block schedule
for course credit (Lolich, et al., 2010). In this RTI implementation example, the block scheduling
allowed the faculty to restructure the school schedule to allow some instructional interventions
within the context of the English classes and/or various math classes. The faculty at that
school—some of whom are the authors listed above—saw the school schedule as one of the
barriers to implementation of RTI, but they were able to create a more fluid schedule within the
large block schedule framework (Lolich, et al., 2010). Time for team meetings was created that
allowed teacher teams to evaluate student performance data. Also the scheduling was
restructured to offer a wide variety of options such as students taking courses for a variety of
credit options, including:
     Taking a class every day for a full semester, resulting in one course credit
     Taking a class every other day for a year, resulting in one course credit
     Taking a class every other day for a semester, resulting in half of a course credit

Screening and Progress Monitoring: A universal screening was conducted prior to students
entering the ninth grade, which consisted of either direct screening or investigation of existing
assessment scores. Those data determine if a student needs the general education curriculum by
itself, or the more intensive RTI program (Lolich et al., 2010). More frequent progress
monitoring is built in for students in the Tier 2 intervention. The authors noted that they used
student performance data to make all placement decisions, and that they could modify a student’s
program quarterly, if needed. They described this RTI procedure as much more responsive to
student needs than waiting to obtain end-of-year grades and then making changes (Lolich, et al.,

The Tier 1 Instruction: This school operates on the model that 80 percent of students should
have their educational needs met with no supportive services (Lolich, et al., 2010). All teachers
were expected to modify instruction and adapt in order to achieve that level of student success.

The Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions: Tigard High School faculty restructured various classes to
provide Tier 2 and Tier 3 support within the context of specific general education classes
(Lolich, et al., 2010). Further, interventions were directed at basic skill areas of reading and
mathematics so English teachers and mathematics teachers undertook most of the Tier 2 and Tier
3 instruction for students who needed those intensive levels of support.

While all students took an English class, the 20 percent of students who needed additional
supplemental reading instruction were placed in an intensive decoding reading curriculum for
either two or three days per week during their English class block periods. On other weekdays,
they continued their Tier 1 English class activities with all other class members. A research-
proven reading curriculum (which was not named in the video) was implemented on those days
for those struggling students. Also, those students were provided extensive scaffolded instruction
related to the core English curriculum.

Results: The results described in this video indicate that the data showed many more students
succeeding in the high school curriculum than previously, though the video did not specifically
share numeric data (Lolich, et al., 2010). However, the video did share student responses to RTI
which were quite moving, as several students discussed the assistance they received through the
RTI English classes. The teacher’s comments about the RTI initiative were also quite supportive,
as shown below.
     “Teachers feel empowered, and students are optimistic!”
     “Kids’ lives are changed dramatically.”
     “When you hear the success stories, there’s no other way to go!”

I strongly recommend a review of this video by every middle and secondary teacher prior to RTI
implementation; this will do more to get teachers on board with RTI than almost any other
activity imaginable. The video can be accessed online (see the website in the reference list:
Lolich, et al., 2010).

         Organizational Planning for RTI in Reading and Math
                 at the Middle and High School Level
As shown in the review of model programs, middle and high schools are implementing Tier 2
and Tier 3 interventions by focusing on one of two options: (1) reorganizing existing
mathematics support programs to effectively serve as Tier 2 or Tier 3 options, and (2) creating
new schedules for new Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 support intervention programs, typically scheduled as
new courses. This is often the first step schools need to take in planning their RTI efforts in

These questions are tools that middle and high school faculties might use as a first step in
discussing organization structure for RTI in mathematics (and reading) at their schools. Use
these questions to structure a worksheet/planning sheet for discussion purposes. Issues such as
mathematics curricula, assessment tools for universal screening and progress monitoring, and
organization of time for someone to do the actual interventions should be discussed in the
development of your plan. Of course, if schools have already begun to implement RTI in
reading, that existing model should certainly be considered for delivery of RTI supports in
mathematics, at least as a starting point. However, educators should not assume that their RTI
models for mathematics will be the same because time requirements for Tier 2 or 3 mathematics
interventions might be different. The two planning tools below will help. Task 1 should be used
by schools that intend to modify an existing mathematics support program to make it an
appropriate Tier 2 for RTI. Task 2 should be used by schools that will be developing a newly
scheduled RTI Tier 2 support program.

Task 1: Modification of Existing Tier 1 Reading and Math Support Programs
to Make Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions Available
   1. What Tier 1 mathematics support programs, if any, currently exist in our school? Can
      these be restructured or reframed in order to provide Tier 2 interventions for students
      struggling in mathematics?
   2. What supplemental mathematics curricula programs, if any, currently exist in our school?
      Can these be used for Tier 2 or Tier 3 support? Do we need new supplemental
      intervention curricula?
   3. What assessments in mathematics might currently be available that could be adapted for
      either universal screening or progress monitoring in mathematics? Have we heard about
      tools in this workshop that we’d like more information on?
   4. Do these support programs currently meet the general requirements of Tier 2
      interventions, as discussed above? Consider screening, progress monitoring, and use of
      research-proven curricula.
   5. Should our school consider restructuring these programs to meet the requirements of Tier
      2 interventions? Are we happy that existing programs provide needed Tier 1 supports,
      and do we wish to structure new options for RTI Tier 2 and 3 interventions?

   6. What specific adjustments in the current mathematics support program might need to be
      made in order to meet the needs and expectations of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention for
      RTI purposes (consider progress monitoring and intervention fidelity specifically)?
   7. Whose responsibility is this restructuring? Who will monitor it and ensure that it is
   8. What timeframe should we recommend for having our Tier 2 and Tier 3 RTI mathematics
      intervention options in place?
   9. Is professional development on RTI in mathematics necessary for our faculty, and if so,
      what timeframe works for that?

Task 2: Creation and Scheduling Options for Developing Tier 2 and Tier 3
Reading and Math Support Programs
   1. What type of RTI Tier 2 and Tier 3 mathematics organizational options are possible in
       our school? Most middle and secondary schools consider some type of additional
       intervention period. Will that work for us?
   2. How might our current schedule be adjusted to provide time for Tier 2 and Tier 3
       intervention options? Does our schedule need to be adjusted?
   3. Will scheduling a double period be a possibility? How do we address the issue of a
       mathematics teacher teaching only six or eight struggling students for an entire period?
       Who teaches the other students that the teacher is not teaching during the doubled period?
   4. How can we structure the newly designed class to meet the guidelines and requirements
       for Tier 2 and Tier 3 progress monitoring? What assessment tools should we consider?
   5. What curricula should be considered for use in our Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention class or
       “doubled” class? Do we wish to designate a specific mathematics curriculum or merely
       implement additional from the core curricula?
   6. What supplemental mathematics curricula programs, if any, currently exist in our school?
       Can these be used for Tier 2 or Tier 3 support? Do we need new supplemental
       intervention curricula?
   7. What assessments in mathematics might currently be available that could be adapted for
       either universal screening or progress monitoring in mathematics? Have we heard about
       any tools in this workshop that we’d like more information on?
   8. Whose responsibility is this restructuring? Who will monitor it and ensure that it is
   9. What timeframe should we recommend for having our Tier 2 and Tier 3 RTI mathematics
       intervention options in place?
   10. Is professional development on RTI in mathematics necessary for our faculty, and if so,
       what timeframe works for that?


To top