Key components of response to intervention (RTI) include universal screening, multi-level support systems, progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Contacts at profiled districts report that universal screening lays the foundation for the entire RTI framework, as it informs initial decisions about interventions and measures student progress. In general, profiled districts screen their students two to three times per year.
Once students are assigned a tier and specific interventions, teachers and staff monitor their progress periodically to identify improved outcomes using tools that vary by grade, tier, and content. Leadership teams at each school make decisions about reassigning students to different tiers based on progress monitoring data. These teams often comprise an administrator, teachers, interventionists, psychologists, and counselors, but team composition differs by district and school.
To promote a consistent approach to RTI across the district, contacts recommend appointing a staff member at the district level to monitor and advocate for RTI. District A, District D, and District C each have a district-level director or coordinator of RTI. While pushing a standard approach to RTI, contacts at District B also recommend allowing for some flexibility within the framework, as resources and student needs vary by school.
Response to intervention framework
Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-level framework that aims to maximize student achievement through the core curriculum, periodic assessment, and interventions when necessary. RTI uses data to identify at-risk students who then receive support of varying intensity, while teachers and staff track their progress. Students typically are transferred between three tiers depending on the level of instruction they require. They can also be in multiple tiers at once. For example, a student can be placed in Tier 2 support for reading and Tier 3 support for math at the same time.
Some RTI frameworks may contain more than three tiers. For example, school districts in Georgia, including District C, consider special education a fourth tier.
Tier 1
All students are taught the core curriculum, while staff monitor student outcomes.
Tier 2
Students who struggle in Tier 1 are moved to Tier 2 for additional support, including small-group and personalized support.
Tier 3
Students who do not improve are escalated to Tier 3 for the most intensive interventions.
Framework evaluation
Profiled districts compare their universal screening results against national and state benchmarks and past student performance to measure the effectiveness of their RTI frameworks.
For example, the third round of universal screening at District A, which occurs at the end of the academic year, largely serves as a tool for program evaluation. Specifically, school leaders compare students’ results, as well as how many students they reclassify to a lower tier, against the screener’s national benchmarks to determine their performance.
Meanwhile, schools in District D monitor the state’s report card to determine whether they are closing performance gaps
30%
Interventionists at a middle school in District A successfully reclassified 30% of 109 sixth grade students to a lower tier after winter screening. Contacts report that percentage was high compared to the screener’s national norms, signaling that their Tier 3 system is effective.
Training and implementation
District A and District B both convened stakeholders to develop a shared definition of RTI (i.e., what they expected the framework to accomplish). Contacts reviewed external resources (e.g., RTI Action Network) and hired consultants to inform and facilitate their discussions.
The steering committees also determined how and in what order to implement their frameworks. For example, District B started their implementation and training process with screeners and assessments because the data they provide are critical to the rest of their framework. To inform this process, a subcommittee identified every assessment tool used in the District. The larger steering committee then narrowed the number of tools used based on discussions about their effectiveness. The committee also used this planning phase as an opportunity to standardize the criteria that qualify students for each tier.
At District D, a leadership team comprising administrators and school psychologists used the Wisconsin RTI Center’s SIR rubric to determine their stages of implementation. They ultimately decided to start with universal screening, as they also considered it foundational to their framework.
This resource requires EAB partnership access to view.
Access the research report
Learn how you can get access to this resource as well as hands-on support from our experts through District Leadership Forum.
Learn More