
General RTI
Teams may use an assessment at Tier II (supplemental instruction) if they deem it helpful in analyzing the problem and designing effective interventions. When the data is collected with the intention of determining entitlement to special education, it constitutes a Tier II (supplemental instruction) response, with the accompanying need for proper documentation of faithful adherence to the IDM/RTI process, procedural safeguards, etc.
Many assessments (e.g. DIBELS) could reasonably serve both intervention and entitlement purposes. The key is how the data will be used.
Because such third party requests are technically not an “educational” issue our reply need not be part of the IDM/RTI process. Northwest AEA is not obligated nor do we encourage “testing” for MR Waivers or for any purpose other than Full & Individual Evaluations. A reasonable response would be to provide the results of the team’s record reviews, current IEP, most recent reevaluation information etc. in a letter or brief statement to the person or agency requesting the information.
No. A diagnosis by itself carries too little information to be effective for program planning. We still need to answer the question “How does the problem affect the student’s educational program, if at all?” IDM/RTI, appropriately done, will help the team determine how to proceed for the individual student.
Yes. This is agency policy. It is addressed in the Iowa Administrative rules of SPED under Identification. See 281—41.47(1)-(3) Identification of eligible individuals.
The purpose of the Instructional Decision Making/Response to Intervention (IDM/RTI) process is to help the team develop effective educational strategies as measured by results data. When effective strategies are determined, the team may decide that they can be delivered in the general education setting without additional supports, thereby avoiding the need for special education. Conversely, the team may, as a result of the Full and Individual Evaluation Process, determine that the delivery of the needed strategies requires a level of support that can only be accomplished by the provision of special education services. Either way, the purpose of the IDM/RTI remains the same.
Processes and forms exist to assist the team in its decision making, and provide documentation of those discussions. The IDM/RTI form is always subject to revision and improvement. As of Winter 2007-2008 a statewide committee has been convened to develop common child find procedures for use in all AEAs. This will likely generate a common form as well.
The Instructional Decision Making/Response to Intervention (IDM/RTI) process is used to determine effective educational strategies and is applicable to any educationally related problem. We make no distinction between “academic” IDM/RTI’s and any other issue that might influence a student’s progress.
An intervention is defined as “direct instruction in the area of concern” (Special Education Eligibility Standards, Iowa Department of Education, July 2006). The team determines who will provide the direct instruction that is needed based on the analysis of data. Individuals will vary depending on geographic locations, staff availability, expertise, etc.
Teachers are experts at delivering direct instruction to students. However teachers may not know all of the possible combinations of research based strategies to use with a particular student. It is the responsibility of the AEA staff to assist teachers with data collection and analysis, design and delivery of direct instructional strategies, and progress monitoring methods.
The purpose of progress monitoring data collection is to determine the effectiveness of the direct instruction being delivered to the student so that changes can be made if needed. Data should be collected often enough for the team to make timely instructional decisions on behalf of the student. While this will vary from one situation to the next, depending on the skills being taught, it would be safe to say that quarterly is not a timely response to student needs, and daily is probably to frequent to measure change. Best practice might suggest that progress monitoring data be collected weekly or bi-weekly.
A copy of the completed IDM/RTI record should always be forwarded to the school for inclusion in the student’s cumulative file. Parents, as members of the IDM/RTI team should also receive a copy on request. In addition the AEA will retain a copy of the IDM/RTI record in either the student’s regular file (if a Full and Individual Evaluation is requested) or in a separate file when the IDM/RTI process does not culminate in a Full and Individual Evaluation. It is anticipated that such records will be destroyed after 3 years.
It depends. An “intervention” is defined as direct instruction in the area of concern, and the purpose of the IDM/RTI process is assist the team in developing effective educational strategies. The IDM/RTI process should also help the school meets its legal obligation to provide documented evidence that attempts have been made to resolve the presenting problem or behavior of concern in the general education setting, prior to requesting a Full and Individual Evaluation. In that context then, it would be neither appropriate nor legal to “place” a student in Special Education (resource or BD room) without a Full and Individual Evaluation, determination of eligibility, IEP, and parent’s signed consent.
However, in certain rare and unusual circumstances, the team may determine that the effectiveness of a particular instructional strategy can only be determined by using special education personnel. In such cases, the preference would be to use the special education teacher but in the general education setting. Still more unusual might be a situation in which the team determines that intervention information will only be available using special education personnel in special education settings. Teams are cautioned that such an approach will provide little if any information about least restrictive environment or accommodations/modifications that might be necessary for student success in general education.
If teams decide to make use of special education personnel to conduct response to intervention activities, the IDM/RTI plan must clearly spell out the instructional strategy to be delivered, the data that will be collected, and the decision making plan that will be used. It must be clearly understood that the use of special education resources in this manner is strictly limited to the interventions described in the IDM/RTI record, and that under no circumstances should the use of such an arrangement last longer than 45 school days. Teams are required to discuss any such arrangements
with the Regional Facilitator prior to implementation.
Consent for Full and Individual Evaluation can be obtained immediately, but that does not exempt the team from conducting IDM/RTI activities including data collection over time. This process and data will help you determine successful interventions or strategies, provide more information to determine eligibility (need for ongoing services), or may solve the problem before the IEP is necessary.
The provision of child find activities to private schools is not a choice; it is our responsibility. It is very important that the team schedules a time in the school and meets on a regular basis with principal and staff (at least once a month). The RTI process should be explained to them. The benefit of the process and the kinds of support that we can give them needs to be brought to their attention as well. The more that we respond to their needs the greater the collaboration efforts will become.
The team secretary's role is to support the team and the service coordinator and is explained in the document “Quick Guide to Routing of RTI and Team Reports”.
For preschool children the AEPS can help with this. If we know what is developmentally appropriate regarding a specific “behavior” and how the referred child performs this "behavior" then we have an understanding of the problem as it relates to what is typically expected.
C. For example, "Helen is able to perform 40% of the pre-academic skills typical of children by age 4, whereas most four year olds display 100% of these skills". The difference describes the problem.
Yes. The Instructional Decision Making/Response to Intervention (IDM/RTI) model uses information about a student’s response to scientifically validated instruction of increasing intensity over time to make important educational decisions about needed services. Even though it is incorrect to think that an eligible individual has to “qualify” for needed services, the team must still document the processes and results used to make its decisions about necessary services. In essence, the student doesn’t have to “qualify” for a service but the team must “justify” its decision to provide a service.
Activities at Tier 1 of the IDM/RTI process consist of core instruction, differentiated instruction, universal screening measures to determine the adequacy of core instruction, and progress monitoring of those students identified, through the universal screening, as potentially at risk for further difficulty before a decision to move to Tier 2. Individual student assessments such as BASC, Conner’s Rating Scales, etc., should only be used after it has been determined that the student is unresponsive at Tier 1, that Tier 2 activities are contemplated, and that the additional assessment information is needed to assist the team in selecting appropriate instructional strategies.
Activities at any level of the Instructional Decision Making/Response to Intervention model should be conducted with integrity and long enough for the team to make valid instructional decisions…and no longer. Best practices described in the literature promote a 6 to 9 week time frame. Others suggest a number of instructional sessions (i.e., 20) as a target. The team must determine what instructional strategies will be used during Tier 2, and how long such instruction will need to be delivered in order to measure a student’s response to the instruction and make subsequent decisions. We will not impose an artificial time-limit, however common sense would dictate that any process that delays a decision beyond 15-20 weeks is probably not in the student’s best interest. The professional judgment and integrity of the team and the magnitude of the problem will determine the adequacy of the time frame.
Students who need substantial assistance in reading based on Reading First testing, DIBELS results, etc. receive continued intensive practice in the general education setting on specific reading skills (i.e., phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, phonics).
Additional strategies for more intensive instruction can be found on-line (e.g., Intervention Central – http://www.interventioncentral.org , Starfall – http://www.starfall.com , Scientifically Based Research http://www.gosbr.net)
NWAEA Contacts with expertise in literacy instruction include Kathy Perret, Kathy Schroeder, Judy Sweetman, Teresa Murray, Jo Hennessey, Carla Lee, Sara Youngers
Whether or not a teacher “wants a student placed” is irrelevant to the decision, made by a team of professionals and parents, that the student has a disability and a need for specially designed instruction that requires special education resources. It is incumbent on the evaluation team to take as much time as is necessary to analyze the student’s responsiveness to increasingly intensive instructional interventions as part of the decision making process. Keep in mind that the goal of the process is to determine which set of instructional strategies are likely to allow the student to progress in the curriculum prior to placement in special education, if at all possible.
The BRI (Basic Reading Inventory) has been described as an “informal reading inventory” and while not technically a standardized, norm-referenced assessment, administration of the inventory is intended to be standardized and certain of the benchmark measures (i.e. reading fluency) are based on normative data. Northwest AEA’s position is that data gathered from the use of the BRI provides reliable information for the determination of eligibility, and that combined with other data sources, the information satisfies the intent expressed in indicators #3 or #4.
The challenge of meeting student’s needs rests on the professional skills, creativity, and leadership of the educators in the building. When determining what resources (translated as people and money) are available to assist students, the possibilities are innumerable. General education teachers, volunteers, support staff, special education teachers, paraeducators, reading or literacy specialists, behavior strategists, counselors…the list goes on…are all part of the constellation of adults who can provide instruction to students. IDEA ’04 also allows school to elect to use up to 15% of their federal special education funds to provide so-called “early intervening services” to students who may be having difficulty but do not have a disability that requires special education services.
Hearing screening information can be accessed via the IMS system, but it can not automatically be put on an educational evaluation.
Because a hearing loss is a medical diagnosis, the team does not need to complete an RTI to obtain FM systems and hearing aids, but an educational evaluation still needs to occur before a student is eligible for special education services. An RTI does need to be completed to add instructional services from an itinerant teacher.




