(“Response to Intervention: Basic Information”, 2011)

(“Response to Intervention: Basic Information”, 2011).

Children with Disabilities:

•Free/Appropriate Education

•Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

•Special Education

IDEA Reauthorized

(Glover, T.A., & DiPerna, J.C., 2007)

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Glover, T.A., & DiPerna, J.C., 2007)

Tier 1

•Scientifically-based, high-quality classroom instruction.

All Students receive:

•Group Interventions.

•Instruction from highly qualified educational staff.•Screening.

At-Risk Students:

•Receive additional support.•Supplemental Instruction during school day, in regular classroom.

Duration:

•8 Weeks Max.

Progress Monitoring:

•Dibels, or other curriculum-based assessment.

•75-85% successful.

(Elliott, 2008) (“What is RTI,” 2013)

Tier 2

Students: Not making adequate progress Tier 1

Intensive Instruction:

•Focused on individual needs.•Levels of performance/rates of progress.

Factors which determine level of intensity include:•Group size•Frequency

•Duration of intervention•Professional training

Subject Areas:

•Reading & MathDuration

•Grading PeriodProgress Monitoring:

•10-15% Meet Criteria for Tier 2

Tier 3

Students:

•Intensive Individualized

Instruction

•Skill deficits targeted

Evaluation

•Special Education•IDEA

Data:

•Tiers 1, 2, and 3

5-10% Meet Criteria for Tier 3

(“What is RTI,” 2012) (Elliott, 2008)

RTI Process

IDEA 2004

Special Education

•Directly assessing specific skills embodied in state and local academic standards

•They can be administered efficiently over short periods

•May be repeatedly administered in multiple forms

•Readily summarized in teacher-friendly ways

•Used to make comparisons across students

•Used to monitor individual student progress over time

•Direct relevance to development of instructional strategies that address student’s area of need

•Formative assessments or curriculum-based assessments align to daily instruction

RTI•Provides a way of helping all students.•Three-Tiered Model •Ongoing Assessments•30 years proven research positiveness of interventions, assessments, and progress monitoring

WORKS CITED

Driscoll, A., & Nagel, N.G. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from

http://www.education.com/print/individuals-disabilities-education-act/

Elliott, J. (2008). Response to Intervention: What & Why? The School Administrator.

65(8). Retrieved March 30, 2013, from

http:www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=4932/

Glover, T.A., & DiPerna, J.C. (2007). Service Delivery for Response to Intervention:

Core Components and Directions for Future Research. School Psychology

Review. Retrieved April 10, 2013, from

http://ezproxy.una.edu:2702/docview/219648485/13D9E7FE4E5496E4752/4?

accountid=14668

Response to Intervention: Basic Information. (2011, March). Performance Learning

Systems: Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.plsweb.com/Products-

Resources/Newsletter/March-2011/

What is RTI? (2012). RTI Action Network. Retrieved April 10, 2013, from

http://www.education.com/reference/article/RTI-response-to-intervention/

What is RTI? (2013). RTI Action Network. Retrieved February 24, 2013, from

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti?tmpl=component&print=1

Web Resources:

www.chumpysclipart.com

school.discoveryeducation.com

www.indiajoin.com