Using Tiered Reading Interventions in Reading Instruction Dr. Aldine W. Lockett III The heart of any Response-to-Intervention (RTI) model lies in the use of tiered instructional processes. Although the assessment components of RTI (universal screening and progress monitoring) are essential elements of implementation, it is the instruction that occurs as a function of the outcomes of the assessments that truly drives the changes we hope to see in students who are identified as being at some level of risk for not meeting academic expectations. Tiered instruction represents a model in which the instruction delivered to students varies on several dimensions that are related to the nature and severity of the students difficulties. Typically, RTI models consist of three tiers of instructional processes, although some models discuss an additional fourth tier and other models subdivide the tiers into smaller units. At Tier 1, considered the key component of tiered instruction, all students receive instruction within an evidence-based, scientifically researched core program. Usually, the Tier 1 instructional program is synonymous with the core reading or math curriculum that is typically aligned with state standards. The intent of the core program is the delivery of a high-quality instructional program in reading or math that has established known outcomes that cut across the skill development of the targeted area. Schools spend significant amounts of time, money, and personnel to make sure that the Tier 1 core program is well chosen from among the many choices available from commercial publishers. The teaching staff must receive sufficient and ongoing professional development to deliver the Tier 1 core instructional program in the way it was designed. The expectation is that if the Tier 1 program is implemented with a high degree of integrity and by highly trained teachers, then most of the students receiving this instruction will show outcomes upon assessment that indicate a level of proficiency that meets minimal benchmarks for performance in the skill area. Many who advocate RTI models indicate that around 75%–80% of children should, theoretically, be expected to reach successful levels of competency through Tier 1 delivery. Although these percentages represent the ideal level of expected outcomes, it may take several years of implementing RTI models to reach such outcome levels in schools with high percentages of students who are struggling. In many of the schools in which we are working, we see levels of around 50%–70% in the early years of implementing RTI models as being strong signals of overall success. In these schools with high percentages of children not reaching proficiency in Tier 1, schools need to organize the RTI model in a way that allows for tiered instruction to be implemented by the available personnel. An approach to such organization is discussed later in this article. Although we would like to find responsiveness to the core program at Tier 1 to be sufficient for all children, for some students the level of instruction is not successful in helping them achieve minimal levels of expected competency. All children receive Tier 1 instruction, but those children in need of supplemental intervention receive additional instruction at Tier 2 or Tier 3. Tier 2 consists of children who fall below the expected levels of accomplishment (called benchmarks) and are at some risk for academic failure but who are still above levels considered to indicate a high risk for failure. The needs of these students are identified through the assessment process, and instructional programs are delivered that focus on their specific needs. Instruction is provided in smaller groups than Tier 1 is (which would be all children in a teachers classroom). Typically, depending on the model of RTI being used, small groups consist of anywhere from about 5 to 8 children. Tier 3 consists of children who are considered to be at high risk for failure and, if not responsive, are considered to be candidates for identification as having special education needs. The groups of students at Tier 3 are of much smaller sizes, ranging from 3 to 5 children, with some models using one-to-one instruction. In such models where one-to-one instruction is used, Tier 3 is usually considered special education; however, in many models it is viewed as a tier that includes children who are not identified as being in need of special education but whose needs are at the intensive level. Differentiating Tiers 2 and 3 Tiers of instruction can be differentiated on several dimensions. One dimension is the intensity of the instruction. Because students at Tier 2 are below expected benchmarks for their grade but have less intensive needs than those at Tier 3, interventions at Tier 2 involve instructional programs that are aimed at a level of skill development considered to be further along the continuum of skill acquisition than that seen at Tier 3. For example, a 2nd grade student who has been placed into Tier 2 for reading may already have well-developed skills in phonics and alphabetic principles underlying the reading process but may be struggling with the development of fluency in reading connected text. By contrast, a similar 2nd grade student identified as being at high risk and placed into Tier 3 may lack the more foundational skills of decoding and need intensive work on phonics. Clearly, these two tiers are being differentiated based on the nature of the instructional program, which is directly matched to the students level of identified risk. Another dimension may be the frequency of the delivery of the tiered instruction. In some models of RTI, the same intervention may be used for students at Tiers 2 and 3, but the difference is the amount of time that the student spends within the tiered instruction. In one model, students may spend 30 minutes per day, three days per week with a particular intervention focused on enhancing vocabulary development, while those students at Tier 3 spend 30 minutes per day, five days per week in the same intervention. Some models of RTI combine both the intensity and quantity of supplemental instruction. In these models, students in Tier 2 may receive this additional instruction 30 minutes per day for 5 days per week, while those in Tier 3 receive the instruction 45 minutes per day, five days per week, plus an additional 60 minutes each week. RTI has the flexibility that allows schools to define the nature of the tiered instruction along one or a combination of these dimensions. Another key differentiation between the tiers is the level of progress monitoring that is used at each tier. Given that progress monitoring is being used to assess the students response to instruction, students at Tier 2 typically receive progress monitoring less frequently than those at Tier 3. In some models the frequency of progress monitoring is defined as weekly or every other week for Tier 2 and twice a week for Tier 3. Again, RTI has the flexibility of allowing the school to establish the level of progress monitoring that is both feasible, given the instructional demands of the classroom, and meaningful in obtaining knowledge of a students response to instruction. Where Does Special Education Fit In? How special education fits into a tiered instructional model is always a question that occurs within RTI models. Different models have placed special education in different ways within the process. In some models, Tier 3 is defined as special education. This level of intensity is typically for children who have not been responsive to the Tier 2 level of instruction and, therefore, are considered in need of more individualized instructional delivery consistent with individualized education programs (IEPs). Some RTI models contain three tiers of instructional intensity, as described above, prior to special education, where special education is viewed as Tier 4. In other models, however, special education is not considered a separate tier. Instead, special education is viewed as a service delivery model that is integrated within the tier of instruction matched to the students skill needs (see Figure 1 below). When an RTI model is introduced to a school, one must consider how to fit those already-identified students with IEPs into the model. Although the large majority of identified students in these models are placed at Tier 3 (that is why they are identified as in need of special education), a percentage of these students may be found to have skill deficits more consistent with those nonidentified students placed at Tier 2. The effectiveness of special education for these students would naturally result in some students having skills that are more consistent with those in the some-risk category than those at high risk. Of course, identified special education students found to have skills consistent with students placed into Tier 1 should be considered for possible declassification. Indeed, RTI offers a clear mechanism for students to move out of special education classification based on the data reflecting levels of skill acquisition. Some individuals may question the difference between a student at Tier 3 who is not identified and an identified special education student who is at Tier 3. The key differences lie in the development of an IEP for the identified students that will bring multiple accommodations across many parts of the students school life, beyond the instructional process taking place at any level of the tiered model. In addition, these students are afforded the legal protections and accountability that are required by law.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 16:02:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015