Taking Action. Austin Buffum

      CHAPTER 1

       The RTI at Work Pyramid

      Where there is no vision, there is no hope.

       —George Washington Carver

      The use of graphic organizers is nothing new in education. Using a symbolic image, such as a Venn diagram, to compare and contrast two items or ideas, can be a powerful tool to visually capture and guide thinking. The use of a pyramid shape to represent a multitiered system of supports is designed to be just that—a graphic organizer. But just as a Venn diagram would be useless to students who don’t understand the thinking represented by two interlocking circles, providing schools with a blank pyramid to build a site intervention program would be useless without ensuring that those using the tool understand the thinking behind it.

      We find the traditional RTI pyramid both a blessing and a curse. When interpreted properly, it is a powerful visual that can organize and guide a school intervention program and processes. But as we mentioned in the introduction, we find that many schools, districts, and states have misinterpreted the pyramid diagram to represent a pathway to special education, which in turn can lead to practices counterproductive to a school’s goal of ensuring every student’s success.

      We have carefully rethought and revised the traditional RTI pyramid. We refer to our visual framework as the RTI at Work pyramid. See figure 1.1 (page 18).

      We call it the RTI at Work pyramid because, as mentioned in the introduction, our recommendations leverage research-based processed to ensure student learning—PLCs and RTI.

      FIGURE 1.1: The RTI at Work pyramid.

      Because the RTI at Work pyramid serves as this book’s culminating activity, let’s dig deeper into the guiding principles behind the design.

Why Is the RTI at Work Pyramid Upside Down?

      While we are not the first educators to invert the traditional RTI pyramid (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Deno, 1970), our reason for this design is in response to a common misinterpretation of the traditional RTI pyramid, which we addressed in the introduction—that RTI is primarily a new way to qualify students for special education. States, provinces, and school districts visually reinforce this conclusion when they place special education at the top of the pyramid, as illustrated in figure 1.2.

      This incorrect application is understandable, as the traditional pyramid seems to focus a school’s intervention system toward one point: special education. Subsequently, schools then view each tier as a required step that they must try to document prior to placing students into traditional special education services. Tragically, this approach tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because the organization starts interventions with protocols designed to screen and document students for this potential outcome.

      FIGURE 1.2: RTI pyramid with special education at the top.

      To challenge this detrimental view of the traditional pyramid, we intentionally inverted the RTI at Work pyramid, visually focusing a school’s interventions on a single point—the individual student. See figure 1.3.

      FIGURE 1.3: Inverted RTI at Work pyramid.

      With this approach, the school begins the intervention process assuming that every student is capable of learning at high levels, regardless of his or her home environment, ethnicity, or native language. Because every student does not learn the same way or at the same speed, or enter school with the same prior access to learning, the school builds tiers of additional support to ensure every student’s success. The school does not view these tiers as a pathway to traditional special education but instead as an ongoing process to dig deeper into students’ individual needs.

      The school begins the intervention process assuming that every student is capable of learning at high levels, regardless of his or her home environment, ethnicity, or native language.

What Are the Three Tiers of the RTI at Work Pyramid?

      RTI has two defining characteristics. It is multitiered and systematic. Additionally, a multitiered system of interventions addresses four outcomes.

      1. If the ultimate goal of a learning-focused school is to ensure every student ends each year having acquired the essential skills, knowledge, and behaviors required for success at the next grade level, then all students must have access to essential grade-level curriculum as part of their core instruction.

      2. At the end of every unit of study, some students will need additional time and support to master this essential grade-level curriculum.

      3. Some students enter each school year lacking skills they should have mastered in prior years—skills such as foundational reading, writing, number sense, and English language. These students require intensive interventions in these areas to succeed.

      4. Some students require all three tiers to learn at high levels.

      All students must have access to essential gradelevel curriculum as part of their core instruction.

      The RTI at Work pyramid has three tiers to visually represent these characteristics and outcomes. The widest part of the pyramid represents the school’s core instruction program. The purpose of this tier—Tier 1—is to provide all students access to essential grade-level curriculum and effective initial teaching. See figure 1.4.

      FIGURE 1.4: Core instruction program.

      Many traditional RTI approaches advocate that the key to Tier 1 is effective first instruction. We don’t disagree with this, but this teaching must include instruction on the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that a student must acquire during the current year to be prepared for the following year. Unfortunately, many schools deem their most at-risk students incapable of learning grade-level curriculum, so they pull out these students and place them in Tier 3 interventions that replace core instruction with remedial coursework. So, even if the initial teaching is done well, if a student’s core instruction is focused on below-grade-level standards, then he or she will learn well below grade level.

      If the fundamental purpose of RTI is to ensure all students learn at high levels—grade level or better each year—then we must teach students at grade level. Every student might not leave each school year having mastered every grade-level standard, but he or she must master the learning outcomes deemed indispensable for future success.

      There is a point in every unit of study when most students demonstrate mastery of the unit’s essential learning outcomes, and the teacher needs to proceed to the next topic. But because some students may not master the essential curriculum by the end of the unit, the school must dedicate time to provide these students additional support to master this essential grade-level curriculum without missing critical new core instruction.