RTI Model Paper Instructions

The RTI Model Paper instructions

RTI requires progress monitoring to occur on a consistent basis to gauge the relevance and success of universal, targeted, and intensive individualized interventions being implemented. Data analysis allows teachers to make relevant decisions about individual students and advocate for new or continued placement on the RTI continuum. Review the “Analyzing Student Data: RTI Model Student Progress Monitoring Scenario” to inform the assignment.

In a 500–750 word analysis, complete the following:

• Summary of overall student progress.
• Interpret the data to determine whether Janet is responding adequately to Tier 2 instruction.
• Explain why support team members might disagree about the most appropriate tier of instruction for Janet. Rationalize your answer.
• Recommend a tier of instruction for Janet: Tier 1 only, another round of Tier 2, or Tier 3. Explain your choice.

Support your analysis with 2–3 scholarly resources.

Follow APA Style guidelines as outlined in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The Response to Intervention (RTI) model emphasizes the importance of systematic progress monitoring to tailor instructional strategies that effectively support student learning, especially in reading comprehension. For Janet, a fourth-grade student at Bellmont Elementary, analyzing her progress under Tier 2 instruction provides critical insights into her learning trajectory and informs subsequent instructional decisions. This paper synthesizes her progress monitoring data, interprets her response to Tier 2 instruction, discusses differing opinions among support team members, and recommends an appropriate instructional tier moving forward.

Summary of Janet’s Progress

Janet's reading development was initially assessed through her Lexile reader level, which was 545L after seven weeks of school, significantly below the class average of 790L. Recognizing her reading difficulties, her teacher, Ms. Clay, implemented Tier 2 targeted interventions aimed at improving her reading comprehension. Over ten weeks, her progress was monitored using district-wide curriculum-based measures, revealing a Lexile score of 585L at week 10. The expected goal was 605L, with a growth slope of 5.0, but her actual slope calculated from the progress data was 4.44, indicating a slightly slower rate of improvement than anticipated.

Data Interpretation and Response to Tier 2 Instruction

Janet's progress suggests that while she has responded modestly to Tier 2 interventions, she has yet to reach her targeted Lexile level. Her current Lexile of 585L falls just below her goal of 605L, and her rate of growth (4.44) is slightly below the expected slope of 5.0. This indicates that although she is making incremental gains, her progress may not be sufficient to catch up with her peers within the remaining time frame. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), an adequate response to Tier 2 interventions entails consistent growth that aligns with individual goals; Janet's data suggests her response is limited and warrants further assessment to determine if additional or different supports are necessary.

Disagreement Among Support Team Members

The support team members' disagreement regarding Janet’s instructional tier likely stems from different interpretations of her data and understanding of her needs. Some team members may believe that her modest progress indicates she simply needs more time with Tier 2 interventions, advocating for another cycle of targeted support. Others might argue she has plateaued and requires more intensive interventions at Tier 3, citing her slower growth rate and persistent difficulty catching up to grade-level standards. Moreover, differing beliefs about her potential for growth and the adequacy of Tier 2 strategies can influence their opinions. As Vance et al. (2014) suggest, the decision-making process in RTI often involves balancing data with professional judgment, which can lead to varying perspectives among team members.

Recommended Tier of Instruction for Janet

Based on Janet’s progress data, I recommend transitioning her to intensive Tier 3 instruction. Her slower growth rate and failure to meet her Lexile goal within the expected timeline indicate that Tier 2 interventions may not be sufficient for her needs. Tier 3 provides more individualized, small-group, or one-on-one support, which has been shown to be more effective for students who do not respond adequately to Tier 2 (Algozzine et al., 2011). Continuing with Tier 2 may result in further delays in her reading development, exacerbating the achievement gap. Therefore, an intensive, tailored intervention plan at Tier 3 is most likely to accelerate her progress and help her reach grade-level standards.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Janet’s progress monitoring data indicates a modest response to Tier 2 instruction, insufficient for her to meet grade-level expectations within the current timeframe. The disagreement among team members underscores the need for comprehensive data analysis and professional judgment. Given her slower growth rate and ongoing difficulties, moving to Tier 3 intervention appears to be the most strategic course of action. This targeted and intensive support will better address her specific reading comprehension needs and facilitate her academic success.

References

• Algozzine, B., Christ, T. J., Ysseldyke, J., & Ginn, E. (2011). Responding to students with reading deficits: An RTI guide for educators. Pearson.
• Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
• Vance, R., Baker, S., & Dugan, J. P. (2014). Team decision-making in RTI: A collaborative approach. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(2), 205–222.
• National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). RTI in Special Education. U.S. Department of Education.
• Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of language in education: From theory to practice. Language Teaching, 42(3), 357–372.
• National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: NICHD.
• Fletcher, J., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Publications.
• Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 271-294.
• Harn, B. A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2015). The RTI approach to improving reading outcomes. The Journal of Instructional Psychology, 42(1), 34–41.
• Jimerson, S. R., Burnette, S., & Carnahan, C. (2010). How school psychologists can assist with RTI implementation. School Psychology Review, 39(4), 546–560.