Response to Intervention Tools for Responsive Progress Monitoring
These protocols have been tested for feasibility and effectiveness as part of an RTI model in public schools. They have been evaluated by researchers in the field of regular educations, special, education, and school psychology and used in funded research. The protocols are design to support a problem-solving model collaborative practices typically used in RTI models. The purpose of the protocols are to have teachers review their whole-class and help them identify how many students needs strategic service such as those of Tier 2 interventions or intensive services such as those in Tier 3 services. The protocols allow for careful monitoring of individual students and their unique plan of instruction. In addition, it allows teachers to begin intervention quicker and more effectively by knowing exactly the beginning and end of intervention services from year to year. This forms were effective in various schools but can be tailored to meet the unique assessment practices of individual schools.
Feel free to download.
Tier 1- Classwide-wide Problem Solving Protocol-
This protocol allows teachers to identify the numbers of students at each tiered for strategic and intensive planning at three points in the year using benchmark data.
Tier 2 RTI Monitoring and Problem Solving Protocol
This protocol allows teacher to careful monitoring of educational interventions. The protocol emphasizes a review of core instructional planning or Tier 1 instruction and then provides guidance into using data to plan Tier 2 strategic intervention. It allows to track intervention, delivery, fidelity of implementation and response to intervention.
Tier 3 RTI Monitoring and Problem Solving Protocol
This protocol allows teacher to careful monitoring of educational interventions. The protocol emphasizes a review of core instructional planning or Tier 1 instruction, reviews the strategic interventions at Tier 2 and then provides guidance into using data to plan Tier 3 intensive intervention. It allows to track intervention, delivery, fidelity of implementation and response to intervention.
Disentangling the difference between a Learning Difference and a Learning Disability use these guiding questions:
Source:Rinaldi, C. & Samson, J (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral recommendations. In A Collection of Articles from Teaching Exceptional Children (pp. 119-134). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Interpersonal/ Oral Language Proficiency Guiding Questions
What is the student’s level of interpersonal English language proficiency?
What is the student’s interpersonal native language proficiency?
Have bilingual education or ESL personnel made recommendations (Ortiz & Yates, 2001)? If so, are these recommendations being monitored using informal measures?
Academic Language Guiding Questions
Is the student receiving instruction that addresses his language needs based on bilingual or ESL professional recommendations?
Do these recommendations address the use of primary/native language to assist in the development of English?
What is the rate of progress and level of English language proficiency since implementation of ESL instructional strategies (Ortiz & Yates 2001)?
What is the student’s academic language proficiency (school skills- decoding, comprehension, vocabulary of tier 1,2, & 3 words?
What is the student’s rate and level of reading and comprehension in the native language compared to English?
Language Disability Guiding Questions
Has the student received evidence-based instruction with fidelity of implementation and intervention to meet his academic needs?
Is there evidence of failure to respond to intervention (learning rate and level of performance)?
Is the data-driven problem solving & progress monitoring addressing the student’s needs effectively in the native language and in English?