Rtii
Rtii
of RTI A Closer
Look at Response
to Intervention
April 2010
This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs Grant No. H326E070004 to the American Institutes for Research. Grace Zamora Durn
and Tina Diamond served as the OSEP project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily
represent the positions or polices 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. This product is public domain. Authorization to
reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not
necessary, the citation should be: National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010).
Essential Components of RTI A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response
to Intervention.
Introduction
To assist states and local districts with planning for RTI, the National Center on
Response to Intervention (NCRTI) has developed this information brief, Essential
Components of RTI A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. This brief provides
a definition of RTI, reviews essential RTI components, and responds to frequently
asked questions. The information presented is intended to provide educators
with guidance for RTI implementation that reflects research and evidence-based
practices, and supports the implementation of a comprehensive RTI framework.
We hope that this brief is useful to your RTI planning, and we encourage you
to contact us with additional questions you may have regarding effective implementation of RTI.
NCRTI believes that rigorous implementation of RTI includes a combination of
high quality, culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, assessment, and
evidence-based intervention. Further, the NCRTI believes that comprehensive RTI
implementation will contribute to more meaningful identification of learning and
behavioral problems, improve instructional quality, provide all students with the
best opportunities to succeed in school, and assist with the identification of learning disabilities and other disabilities.
Through this document, we maintain there are four essential components of RTI:
l
Screening
Progress Monitoring
The graphic below represents the relationship among the essential components of
RTI. Data-based decision making is the essence of good RTI practice; it is essential
for the other three components, screening: progress monitoring and multi-leveled
instruction. All components must be implemented using culturally responsive and
evidence based practices.
Defining RTI
NCRTI offers a definition of response to intervention that reflects what is currently
known from research and evidence-based practice.
Response to intervention integrates assessment and intervention within a
multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce
behavioral problems. With RTI, schools use data to identify students at risk for
poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based
interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions
depending on a students responsiveness, and identify students with learning
disabilities or other disabilities.
Tertiary
level of
prevention
Secondary
level of
prevention
Primary prevention: high quality core instruction that meets the needs of most
students
to the framework described herein, and the two can be combined to provide a
school-wide academic and behavioral framework.
Integrate all the resources to minimize risk for the long-term negative
consequences associated with poor learning or behavioral outcomes
What impact does RTI have on students who are not struggling?
An important component of an effective RTI framework is the quality of the primary prevention level (i.e., the core curriculum), where all students receive highquality instruction that is culturally and linguistically responsive and aligned to a
states achievement standards. This allows teachers and parents to be confident
that a students need for more intensive intervention or referral for special education evaluation is not due to ineffective classroom instruction. In a well designed
RTI system, primary prevention should be effective and sufficient for about 80% of
the student population.
education in grades K-8. These tools must be reliable and valid for representing
students development and have demonstrated utility for helping teachers plan
more effective instruction. Progress monitoring is conducted at least monthly to:
l
Problem solving to identify interventions, as needed, to address behavior problems that prevent students from demonstrating the academic skills they possess
10
with fidelity. NCRTI has established a Technical Review Committee (TRC) which is
conducting a review of the rigor of instructional practices for secondary prevention.
The results of this review will be posted at http://www.rti4success.org.
Secondary prevention is expected to benefit a large majority of students who do
not respond to effective primary prevention. As evidenced by progress monitoring
data, students who do not benefit from the interventions provided under secondary prevention may need more intensive instruction or an individualized form of
intervention, which can be provided at the tertiary prevention level.
11
implements, each should be classified under one of the three levels of prevention:
primary, secondary, or tertiary. Within this three-level prevention system, schools
may configure their RTI frameworks using 4, 5, or more tiers of intervention. In
choosing a number of tiers for their RTI framework, practitioners should recognize
that the greater the number of tiers, the more complex the framework becomes.
All students receive instruction within primary prevention level, which is often
synonymous with tier 1.
12
Can students move back and forth between levels of the prevention
system?
Yes, students should move back and forth across the levels of the prevention
system based on their success (response) or difficulty (minimal response) at the
level where they are receiving intervention, i.e., according to their documented
progress based on the data. Also, students can receive intervention in one academic area at the secondary or tertiary level of the prevention system while receiving
instruction in another academic area in primary prevention.
13