Multitiered instruction
The nature of the academic intervention changes at each tier, becoming more intensive as a student moves across the tiers. Increasing intensity is achieved by (a) using more teacher-centered, systematic, and explicit (e.g., scripted) instruction; (b) conducting it more fre- quently; (c) adding to its duration; (d) creating smaller and more homogenous student groupings; or (e) relying on instructors with greater expertise. Some practitioners (e.g., Grimes, 2002) regard these tiers as substituting for the comprehensive evaluation now afforded all children suspected of having LD.
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)
Problem solving
- l, the process is meant to be the same: Practitioners determine the magnitude of the problem, analyze its causes, design a goal-directed intervention, conduct it as planned, monitor student progress, modify the intervention as needed (i.e., based on student responsiveness), and evaluate its effectiveness and plot future actions (cf. Grimes, 2002). Throughout this problem-solving process, and across the four tiers, “data about a stu- dent’s responsiveness to intervention becomes the driving force
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)
- Whereas the problem-solving approach differs from child to child, a standard treatment protocol does not. Implementation usually involves a trial of fixed duration (e.g., 10 to 15 weeks) delivered in small groups or individually
- if students respond to the treatment trial, they are seen as remediated and disability-free and are returned to the classroom for instruction. If they are unresponsive, they move to a more intensive, Tier 2 standard treat- ment protocol. If they then demonstrate adequate progress, they are returned to the classroom. But if they show insufficient progress at Tier 2, a disability is suspected and further evaluation is warranted.
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)
RTI’s two purposes: to provide struggling students with early, effective instruction and to provide a valid means of assessing learner needs. The I in RTI has, in a sense, become the test stimulus. Children’s level or rate of growth—their degree of responsiveness—is the test performance
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)
Why RTI
-For decades, policymakers and academics have been frustrated by the LD construct generally and by IQ–achievement discrepancy particularly. One promi- nent reason is economics. In a sense, LD became too successful for its own good—if success may be defined by the number of children with the label. Shortly after LD was legitimized as a special-education category in the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the proportion of children with LD in the gen- eral U.S. population skyrocketed from less than 2% in 1976–1977 to more than 6% in 1999–2000. This in- crease has proved expensive for school districts be- cause, on average, it costs two to three times more to teach children with disabilities
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)