SCHOOLWIDE

CURRICULAR RESPONSE
TO INTERVENTION
PROPOSAL
Jasmine Tolbert
Program Rationale

■ Response to Intervention or RTI is an important component to a successful school

because supports all students and provided struggling students with individualized
instructional opportunities.
■ According to Wingate (2018), Response to intervention (RTL) is a framework that
identifies students who are falling behind grade level, typically in math, reading, or
writing, and provides a targeted, research-based intervention. There are three essential
components of RTI:
– high-quality, research-based instruction in general education
– universal screening
– continuous monitoring of academic progress
RTI Levels and Encompassing
Interventions
■ Level 1
– Whole group instruction -100% of student population
■ High quality instruction
■ Researched- teaching strategies

■ Level 2
– Small group instruction – up to 100% of student population
■ To fill learning gaps that will create connections to Level 1 instruction.
■ Individualized instruction delivered in a small group setting
RTI Levels and Encompassing
Interventions
■ Level 3
– Intensive intervention - outside of special education
■ Student data will be reviewed by the SST (Student Support Team)
■ Often individualized instruction with a 3:1 ratio or less (student to teacher)
■ This instruction may focus on basic skill mastery which may prohibit the student from access Level 1 or
Level 2 instruction.
– I.e. Letter/Sound recognition, Number recognition, Basic counting etc.
■ Level 4 (Referral from SST and/or Parent required)
– Special education services - special education population
■ IEP - accommodations/ modifications
■ 504 Plan – behavior plans
■ Self-contained services
High Quality Whole Group Instruction

Small Group Individual Instruction

Intensive Intervention

Special
Education
Effective Educational Experience

■ “One major challenge for RTI in early education is the dearth of evidence-based Tier 1
curricula in general and the infrequent implementation of evidence-based curricula to
promote early literacy…”,(Carta. 2014).
■ For teachers and administrators to ensure that students are receiving an effective
educational experience, Level 1 (Tier 1) instruction must be rigorous, culturally
relevant, and aligned to State Standards. That is the first defense when looking to fill
gaps in student learning.
■ Another important step is to effectively groups students based on benchmark data along
with plan intervention that specifically addresses their individual needs.
Alignment to State Standards and District
Curriculum
■ Aligning the interventions provided during to the district curriculum and state standards
is important to ensuring that students are able to reengage with Level 1 instruction.
■ All interventions should be created to not only increase student achievement overall but
also prepare them to be successful on state aligned assessments and district benchmarks.
■ The interventions provided in the plan will support teachers in decreasing learning
deficits in students and preparing them to show grade level mastery.
 Sample Assessment Data
1st Grade BOY Reading Benchmark
Student A Proposed Intervention
■ Overall Composite: 316 (Well Below) 330 is the goal ■ Student is struggling with basic letters,
sounds and word reading.
■ Decoding: 0 (Well Below)
■ Possible Intervention:
■ Letter Names: 18 (Well Below) – Level 1: Whole group
■ Phonemic Awareness: 4 (Well Below) ■ Student may be moved closer to
teacher to support attention.
■ Letter Sounds: 21 (Well Below)
– Level 2: Small group
■ Word Reading: 7 (Well Below) ■ Student should be pulled to work in
a group to focus on letter
■ Oral Language: 18 (Benchmark) sounds/recognition and building
decoding skills.
■ Oral Reading Fluency:
– Level 3: Intensive Intervention
– 63% accuracy (Below)
■ To be considered if student does not
– 5 words per minute (Below) make adequate growth in the first
grading period.
Utilizing Technology to Differentiate
Instruction and Track Student Progress
■ The use of technology is important to student progress because it allows students to
interact with the content on their individual levels.
■ Students can use computer and laptops to participate in programs that assess their ability
and creates personalized instructional opportunities.
■ Technology can also be used to track student progress by providing a digital platform to
collect, monitor, and analyze student data.
■ Utilizing technology provides the teacher with additional teaching strategies along with
providing students with multiple ways to access the content as well as show mastery.
Professional Development for Teachers

■ “Research has demonstrated that general education practitioners do not feel adequately
prepared to work with students who have disabilities or with students in inclusion
settings”, (Hurlbut, 2016)
■ The first step in implementing the RTI plan is to organize a comprehensive professional
development plan to train faculty and staff on the purpose and process behind RTI.
– This will include:
■ Schoolwide training on RTI procedures
■ Development on tailoring lessons to meet student’s individual needs
■ Additional support from instructional coaches with grouping students and analyzing
data
Addressing Obstacles
(uncertainty, risk, competing initiatives, and politics of
change)
■ RTI does not address issues that are outside of the schools control that can negatively
impact student performance.
– I.e. poverty, trauma, abuse, cultural differences etc.
■ “According to Berkeley et al., RTI cannot differentiate students with LD from those
with other disabilities such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, behavioural or
emotional disorders, or intellectual disabilities (2009). Some of this inconsistency could
be attributed to inconsistent policies and implementation efforts across the country…”,
(Raben, 2019).
– This means that students may identified as having learning disability based upon
non academic factors.
Program Goals

■ The goals of the RTI Program are:

– Increase the schools capacity and ability to properly identify and serve students in on all levels of
RTI.
■ This will be measured in the number of professional development days and trainings completed by staff.
■ This goal will be met if 95% of all faculty and staff successfully complete all RTI related PDs and
trainings.

– Decrease the learning gaps of students overall during a school year

■ This looks like moving students up the pyramid toward Level 1
■ This goal will be met if there is a noticeable difference in the number of students moving from a lower
‘tier’ to a higher ‘tier”
– I.e. 25% of students on Level 3 in each grade end the year on Level 2.
Supporting the School’s Mission and
Vision.
■ The mission of the school is to prepare students to be college and career ready.
– Students on Levels 2-4 will be receive instruction that is designed to fill any
learning gaps that they have that may hinder them from attaining on grade level
instruction.
■ The proposed RTI plan supports the school’s mission and vision by:
– Ensuring that all student receive a wholistic and rigorous academic experience
– Providing supports that allow all students to be successful
– Creates various learning opportunities for all students which will prepare them to
be competent readers, writers and problem solvers as noted in the school’s vision
statement.
References

■ Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Atwater, J., McConnell, S. R., Goldstein, H., & Kaminski, R.
A. (2014). Identifying preschool children for higher tiers of language and early literacy
instruction within a response to intervention framework. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4),
281–291. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1053815115579937
■ Hurlbut, A. R., & Tunks, J. (2016). Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Experiences with
Response to Intervention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(3), 25–48.
■ Raben, K., Brogan, J., Dunham, M., & Bloomdahl, S. C. (2019). Response to Intervention
(RTI) and Changes in Special Education Categorization. Exceptionality Education
International, 29(2), 59–71.
■ Wingate, S. E., Postlewaite, R. R., Mena, R. M., Neely-Barnes, S. L., & Elswick, S. E.
(2018). Parent knowledge of and experiences with response to intervention. Children &
Schools, 40(3), 163–172. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/cs/cdy010