**5. Explanation of a multitiered system**

As mentioned in the overview, RTI is a multitiered system. Although variations of multitier instructional systems exist, this chapter discusses the use of three-tier models. Various school systems nationwide have discussed and adopted the use of the three-tier model. Barnes and Harlacher [6] describe a typical implementation of the three-tier RTI system, which includes 60 minutes of core instruction for all students (Tier 1), 30 minutes of supplemental instruction for those students requiring additional interventions (Tier 2), and additional specialized instruction for those requiring maximum additional support (Tier 3). Therefore, as a student changes tiers (Tier 1 to 2 or Tier 2 to 3), the interventions' intensity increases. This intensity is measured using several factors, including physical features of the intervention (duration, session frequency, and length) and the student-to-teacher ratio. As the student-to-teacher ratio decreases in size, interventions become more intense [8].

Though most illustrations and descriptions of multitiered systems depict a triangle or pyramid as three or more distinct levels, other models have been presented. One such visualization depicts the RTI model in a series of interconnected circles in order to emphasize the relationship and overlap of each targeted intervention. In either depiction, a pyramid or a circle, an effective three-tier model must provide instructional programming in a dynamic and fluent manner across all three levels [9].

Although the number of tiers and what interventions are provided at each tier may differ between different models, they all implement the general concepts of RTI by providing levels of increasingly intensive instruction and interventions with the same end goal: promoting positive academic outcomes. According to these models, approximately 80–90% of the students will be successful with just high-quality general education instruction, while 15–20% will need some form of targeted supplemental instruction. Only 1–5% will require intensive interventions [9].

#### **5.1. Tier 1**

RTI emerged in the field of education based on research on specific learning disabilities (SLDs) and reading interventions. The results of SLD research influenced education laws and classroom practice [4]. In the United States of America, special education is governed by IDEA 2004. IDEA 2004 encouraged schools to use research-based interventions to differentiate between students struggling due to poor instruction or to a disability [5]. Prior to the reauthorization of IDEA 2004, a student may qualify for services under the SLD category by showing a discrepancy between achievement and aptitude on a qualified assessment. As a discrepancy model, SLD is the term used to describe a student performing at average or higher intelligence on a standardized test and performing at a significant discrepancy (usually two standard deviations) in one or more academic areas. Shortcomings of the discrepancy model led leaders in the field of SLD to propose RTI as a valid method of identifying a student with a learning disability [4]. Through the use of powerful, scientific-based procedures for decision making, RTI focuses on improving the outcomes in both general and special education [5].

RTI is more than a method of identifying students with learning disabilities; it is a way to ensure better academic outcomes for all students. RTI shifts the focus from individual intrinsic abilities and characteristics to environmental variables and instruction [6]. The shift also requires a closer look at individualizing instruction within the classroom and consistent monitoring of progress through validated, research-based techniques [5]. Further, RTI encourages educators to be proactive in identifying learning delays, ideally to prevent those delays from becoming learning disabilities. Educators can intervene as early as preschool and kindergarten. This model differs from the past practice of allowing the opportunity for students to fail in middle-elementary grades (e.g., second and third grades) before intervening with special education services [3].

RTI's proposed models involve two critical components: (a) evidence-based instruction and interventions implemented and (b) ongoing monitoring of student progress and responses throughout intervention. Valid instruction and interventions are defined as those leading to positive, reliable results for students with similar characteristics [5]. Thus, using RTI to identify students with SLD requires showing not only that a student demonstrates educational need but also an inconsistent response to high-quality general education instruction [7].

As mentioned in the overview, RTI is a multitiered system. Although variations of multitier instructional systems exist, this chapter discusses the use of three-tier models. Various school systems nationwide have discussed and adopted the use of the three-tier model. Barnes and Harlacher [6] describe a typical implementation of the three-tier RTI system, which includes 60 minutes of core instruction for all students (Tier 1), 30 minutes of supplemental instruction for those students requiring additional interventions (Tier 2), and additional specialized instruction for those requiring maximum additional support (Tier 3). Therefore, as a student changes tiers (Tier 1 to 2 or Tier 2 to 3), the interventions' intensity increases. This intensity is measured using several factors, including physical features of the intervention (duration, session frequency, and length) and the student-to-teacher ratio. As the student-to-teacher ratio

**5. Explanation of a multitiered system**

104 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

decreases in size, interventions become more intense [8].

In Tier 1, general education teachers rely on the core curriculum and provide students with evidence-based, high-quality instruction. Students are regularly assessed using a variety of methods, including Curriculum-Based Measurements (CBM) to ensure that the students are responding to the instruction. Students who may need additional support are identified in Tier 1 and provided with alternate methods of instruction or interventions within the classroom setting [4]. As shown in **Figure 1**, Tier 1 instruction meets the needs of about 80% of the students within the general education setting; however, approximately 20% of the students do not reach grade-level standards within the core program under Tier 1. Therefore, additional instruction and intervention should be implemented [5]. The expected outcome for Tier 1 is for students to receive quality instruction and achieve expected academic and behavioral goals within the general education setting [9]. If the expected outcome is not attained, Tier 2 instruction and interventions are implemented.

#### **5.2. Tier 2**

When a student does not respond to additional instruction and intervention within the general education classroom in Tier 1, Tier 2 interventions are implemented. Thus, the intensity of interventions is increased (**Figure 1**). Tier 2 interventions can be provided within the school day, such as support from a reading specialist or through a specific research-validated intervention. Tier 2 interventions could also occur after school, such as tutoring [10]. In addition, the supplemental instruction is targeted to the specific areas of need and directly compliments the core instruction [9]. These interventions may require small-group instruction (four to five students) or one-to-one tutoring and more regular (biweekly) progress monitoring. Often taking 20 minutes per day to implement, Tier 2 interventions are implemented for up to 20 weeks. Students can exit Tier 2 services, if they meet grade-level benchmarks. Some students may continue for the full 20 weeks in order to make sufficient progress [5]. The documentation of a student's responses is critical within Tier 2 interventions. The data collected can be used to determine whether a more formal special education assessment is necessary [6].

The expected outcome of Tier 2 is for students to receive more targeted instruction after not meeting general class expectations and exhibiting the need for supplemental support. Targeted Tier 2 instruction can take place within the general education classroom or in other settings in the school, such as pullout situations. Students' instruction and interventions should be modified and differentiated while providing more specialized equipment and technology, as needed, to target each individual student's instructional needs. Students who make insufficient progress in Tier 2 then are considered for Tier 3, intensive intervention. There should be evidence-based documentation and evaluation to support evidence of insufficient progress [9].

#### **5.3. Tier 3**

If a student does not make acceptable progress within provided supplemental instruction and intervention within Tier 2, they can then be referred to Tier 3. Tier 3 includes more intense, specifically designed instruction and/or special education services [4]. Tier 3 is a high-quality, intensive intervention that includes interventions that are individualized to meet significant needs, including various disabilities. About 2–5% of the students who did not respond as expected to Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions are provided more intensive interventions within Tier 3. The length of time required to implement Tier 3 interventions will often replace some portion of the core curriculum, at least temporarily. Depending on the district or school policy and decision-making process, Tier 3 interventions may or may not include special education services (**Figure 1**). Through continued progress monitoring of the documentation of interventions and further evaluation, often students within Tier 3 will be referred to special education and may qualify for special education services [5]. However, to assume that Tier 3 is only for special education is a myth. In RTI, it is expected that students with learning disabilities of all kinds are represented in all tiers of intervention, including students who are not classified as special education students. This expectation depends on universal screening of the particular skill domain, behavior, and outcome of interest [3]. The expected outcome for Tier 3 is to provide students who have more significant needs with intensive, evidence-based interventions within a range of educational settings [9].

#### **6. Progress monitoring**

A key component to successful RTI implementation is a formal and organized assessment system. This component is crucial in the decision-making process when determining what tier to place students. Assessment, progress monitoring, and instruction are intricately tied together within the RTI model. Students are usually placed into their initial tier through the results of benchmark assessments, though teacher observations can be considered as well. Once students are placed in their appropriate tiers, they are progress monitored to track how well they are responding to their current instruction. If the student is not progressing at the expected rate, a change in instruction, interventions, or possibly their tier needs to be considered [11]. Ongoing progress monitoring serves two purposes: (a) the data collected is used to make decisions about instruction, interventions, and placement within tiers by evaluating the students' strengths and needs, and (b) continual progress monitoring determines whether the student is responding to the intervention. The data collected from continual progress monitoring aids in the decision-making process whether a student needs to continue receiving intensive intervention services with Tier 2 or Tier 3 or can be exited from the tier they are currently placed [5].

It is important that students are assessed and monitored frequently and continually, in order for schools to identify and respond quickly when students are not meeting academic standards or the aligned goals for intervention [6]. With RTI, decisions regarding progress are more high stakes and less self-correcting. Failure to progress monitor and respond to students that are not meeting the targeted goals can potentially cause them to be referred for special education services, resulting in a special education label and placement. With that, a more intensive intervention is implemented and often comes with well-known special education side effects such as reduced time with nondisabled peers, stigmatization, and so forth [7].

For all students in Tier 1, benchmark assessments should be taken three to four times per year. Often, schools throughout the United States of America follow a fall, winter, and spring benchmark time frame. RTI models differ on recommended frequency of progress monitoring within each tier. Most often, it is suggested for students in Tier 3 to be monitored weekly. Some models suggest two to four times per month, which on the high end of the suggested times equates to weekly monitoring. Suggestions for Tier 2 include twice a month and one to two times per month. When choosing a progress monitoring schedule, consider the possibility of a student in Tier 2 or Tier 3 being referred for special education services. It is encouraged to have a minimum of six to eight data points that show a student's lack of response to interventions and/or instruction and need for more intensive interventions. Although schools throughout the United States of America may use different assessment systems, procedures, and progress monitoring time lines, the two purposes of RTI are met by using data from formative assessments (i.e., ongoing assessment used to monitor student progress while the instruction is occurring) in order to guide the decision-making process about instructional placements and decisions [6].
