Taking Action. Austin Buffum
grade-level curriculum is the purpose of the second tier—Tier 2—in the RTI at Work pyramid. See figure 1.5.
FIGURE 1.5: Supplemental help to master grade-level curriculum.
This is a critical point—the defining characteristics of Tier 2 are not the size of the intervention group or the duration of the intervention. Instead, it is defined by the targeted learning outcomes. Supplemental help should focus on providing targeted students with the additional time and support needed to master the specific skills, knowledge, and behaviors identified at Tier 1 to be absolutely essential for a student’s future success. Classroom teacher teams should be actively involved at Tier 2, as these outcomes directly relate to their areas of expertise. Because supplemental interventions are focused on very specific learning targets, placement into Tier 2 interventions must be timely, targeted, flexible, and most often guided by team-created common assessments aligned to grade-level essential standards.
The defining characteristics of Tier 2 are not the size of the intervention group or the duration of the intervention.
If a school provides students access to essential grade-level curriculum and effective initial teaching during Tier 1 core instruction, and targeted supplemental academic and behavioral help in meeting these standards at Tier 2, then most students should be succeeding.
However, there inevitably will be a number of students who enter each school year lacking the foundational skills needed to learn at high levels. These universal skills of learning include the ability to:
1. Decode and comprehend grade-level text
2. Write effectively
3. Apply number sense
4. Comprehend the English language (or the school’s primary language)
5. Consistently demonstrate social and academic behaviors
6. Overcome complications due to health or home
As you may have noticed, these skills are listed inside Tier 3 on our RTI at Work pyramid. They represent much more than a student needing help in a specific learning standard; instead, they represent a series of skills that enable a student to comprehend instruction, access information, demonstrate understanding, and behave appropriately in a school setting. If a student is significantly behind in just one of these universal skills, he or she will struggle in virtually every grade level, course, and subject. And usually a school’s most at-risk students are behind in more than one area. Therefore, for students who need intensive remediation in foundational skills, the school must have a plan to provide this level of assistance without denying these students access to essential grade-level curriculum. This is the purpose of Tier 3. See figure 1.6.
If a student is significantly behind in just one of these universal skills, he or she will struggle in virtually every grade level, course, and subject.
FIGURE 1.6: Intensive remediation in foundational skills.
Because students develop universal skills over time, targeted students should receive this intensive remediation as part of their instructional day. Also, only a school’s most highly trained staff in the students’ targeted areas of need should provide these interventions.
Last and most important, some students need all three tiers to learn at high levels—this is why it is called a multitiered system of supports. Schools don’t just move students from tier to tier. Instead, the tiers are cumulative … value added! All students need effective initial teaching on essential grade-level standards at Tier 1. In addition to Tier 1, some students need supplemental time and support in meeting essential grade-level standards at Tier 2. In addition to Tier 1 and Tier 2, some students need intensive help in learning essential outcomes from previous years. Students in need of Tier 3 intensive help in remedial skills most likely struggle with new essential grade-level curriculum the first time it is taught. This means these students need Tier 2 and Tier 3, all without missing new essential instruction at Tier 1.
Individual teachers cannot effectively provide this level of support in their classrooms. We tried this model for many years—it was called a one-room schoolhouse. Instead, it requires a schoolwide, collective, collaborative, coordinated, all-hands-on-deck mentality. This is why structuring a school to function as a PLC is the key to effectively implementing RTI.
Structuring a school to function as a PLC is the key to effectively implementing RTI.
Why Is the RTI at Work Pyramid Split?
Another misinterpretation of RTI occurs when schools view Tier 1 as the classroom teachers’ responsibility, and interventions as solely the interventionist staff’s responsibility, such as instructional aides, categorical-funded teachers, and the special education department. This approach means some classroom teachers assume that when students require help after initial teaching, their job is to send them to someone else. According to Buffum and colleagues (2012), this practice can overwhelm site intervention teams and resources, especially at schools with a large number of at-risk students:
In response to this problem, many districts dictate that classroom teachers cannot refer a student for schoolwide interventions until they can document a set of predetermined interventions that must first be tried in the classroom. This mandate places the initial responsibility of Tier 2 interventions with classroom teachers exclusively. The problem with this approach is that every student does not struggle for the same reason. As previously discussed, the reasons why students struggle can vary from just needing a little extra practice on a new concept, to lacking necessary prerequisite skills, to requiring assistance with English language, to having attendance and behavior issues. It is unlikely that each teacher has all the skills and time needed to effectively meet all of these needs. This approach fails students and educators.
The answer lies not in determining who is responsible for intervening when students don’t learn after core instruction—classroom teachers or the school’s intervention resources—but in determining the lead responsibilities of each specific staff member. To visually capture this thinking, we have divided the RTI at Work pyramid into two distinct areas of responsibility: interventions led by collaborative teacher teams and interventions led by the schoolwide teams. (p. 12)
The upper-right portion of the pyramid in Tier 1 and Tier 2 represents responsibilities that collaborative teacher teams should lead. See figure 1.7.
FIGURE 1.7: Tier 1 and Tier 2 responsibilities for collaborative teacher teams.
By collaborative teacher teams, we mean teams of educators who share essential learning outcomes for their students—the structure advocated for in the PLC at Work process. At the elementary level, they are most likely grade-level teams, while at the secondary level, they are content and course specific. This book clearly identifies the essential actions for which teacher teams should take lead responsibility at Tiers 1 and 2. These outcomes directly relate to the expertise, training, and job-embedded responsibilities of classroom teachers.
The left side of the RTI at Work pyramid at Tiers 1, 2, and 3 represents processes that must be coordinated across the entire school. See figure 1.8.
FIGURE 1.8: Tiers 1, 2, and 3 processes