Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.



No description

Ryan Cantrell

on 28 February 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of RtI

Response to Intervention
The concepts of RTI have been around since the mid 90’s, but it’s evolution began in the 70’s with the Cascade model
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act, requires that all children be assessed with state-mandated summative assessments, and held schools accountable for student success
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 made a more forcible case for a results-oriented approach.
Why RtI?
RTI is designed to ‘do away with’ the wait-to-fail model, by providing intervention and support before the student is referred to special education.
Students were mistakenly over-identified as special education students (p. 20).
ELL (English Language Learner) students
Lack of SRB (Scientifically Research-Based) instruction/curriculum
Lack of fidelity to the curriculum
Poor student attendance
Behavioral issues
Lack of differentiated instruction
Why RtI?
“Most schools do not emphasize prevention and early intervention, in part because they treat general and special education as separate entities, both instructionally and financially.” (Pyramid Response to Intervention)
RtI is designed to be a proactive approach to helping struggling students.
Ahead of the Curve
Special Education ~ the tail that wags the dog
Specific Learning Disability
Blended model
Cognitive and RtI
Replaced Learning Disability
Data is IMPERATIVE to this model, and to RtI
Universal Screener
EVERY student in the school is screened
Reading/Math/Written Language/Behavior
3 times annually
Should be a norm-referenced screener
Provides percentile rankings
Examples from various districts
CORE phonics
IRI (Idaho Reading Indicator)
ISAT (Idaho Standards of Achievement)
Easy CBM
enVision MATH
AIMSweb probes
What do we want students to know, and how will we know if they’ve learned it?

How will we respond, when students don’t learn?
Review Student Data
Usually done on the context of PLC's
Universal screener data is reviewed, in addition to other data available (summative assessments, etc), for each student.
Potential struggling learners are discussed and reviewed
Tier II students identified
Interventions discussed and scheduled
Based on missing prerequisite skills.
Interventions should be scientifically, research-based programs, shown to be effective with students similar to those you’re working with, and proven to be effective at improving the identified skill.
At the very least, evidenced-based practices need to be implemented.
Florida Center for Reading Research
What Works Clearninghouse
Progress Monitoring
Norm-referenced, progress monitoring weekly or bi-weekly.
Must match the skill you're teaching in the intervention!
Minimum of 6 weeks (prefer 8-12).
Graph the data
Goal/Aim line
Most common
Progress Monitoring
Progress Monitoring
Progress Monitoring
Review Student Progress
Reviewed with co-workers
Usually in the context of PLC's
Are the interventions effective?
Data review (graphs)
Aim line, goal line, trend line ROI
Modify Interventions
Change intervention
Group Size
Material/Curriculum Reviewed
Involve other professionals
Reading coach
School psych
Special educators
ELL teachers
Refer the Student
Full transcript