CEC's RTI Blog

Research Support for RTI -- Are We There Yet?

By Joseph Kovaleski, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

At a recent meeting, a colleague opined that the research support for RTI was “just not there yet.” That comment got me thinking about what type of research support is needed for schools to adopt RTI and, in particular, the three-tier model. In this blog post, I would like to take a look at some of the research findings related to RTI. Because of space constraints inherent to blogs, I will not be able to provide citations at this time; however, I would be happy to provide them upon request.

It is useful to start with a distinction. As I described in previous posts, the contemporary three-tier model includes many features that were not components of precursor models, such as problem-solving teams. These new features are typically research-based practices that logically should improve the effectiveness of problem-solving teams. In addition, the three-tier model uses the problem-solving process as its central operating procedure.

RTI and Problem-Solving

By Joseph Kovaleski, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Many people trace the beginnings of RTI to team-based structures that were developed in the 1980s and 1990s. Beginning as teacher assistance teams (TATs), team structures such as instructional support teams (ISTs), instructional consultation teams (ICTs), and mainstream assistance teams evolved. Although there were substantial differences among these teams, all shared a problem-solving process as their central operating procedure.

Briefly, the problem-solving process involves the following steps:

• identify the problem
• set a measurable goal
• develop solutions to address the problem
• implement the solutions
• evaluate the effectiveness of the solutions

Today, most multi-tier (RTI) models continue to incorporate a problem-solving process as a key component. However, it cannot be said that problem-solving teams are equivalent to RTI. There are some crucial differences that need to be recognized.

RTI and Data-Based Decision Making: Progress Monitoring

By Joseph Kovaleski, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

The second key assessment approach in a multi-tier service delivery is progress monitoring. One might say that progress monitoring is the key to RTI, in that it provides a precise assessment of a student’s response during the course of instruction or intervention. We have known that progress monitoring is an effective instructional practice for more than 20 years. In a seminal review of the literature on progress monitoring as of 1986, Lynn Fuchs found the following features of progress monitoring to be directly connected with student achievement:

• the setting of ambitious goals
• assessment of students twice per week
• graphing and student data
• use of data utilization rules to make instructional decisions

I referenced this historic study to emphasize that we have known about the benefits of progress monitoring for many years, although it may be argued that it has only become widespread in the years leading up to the RTI movement. As with universal screening, progress monitoring was originally developed in the context of CBM and most of the research has been done with this particular application. 

RTI and Data-Based Decision Making: Screening

By Joseph Kovaleski, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

I recently participated in a web-based forum on data-based decision making and RTI sponsored by the RTI Action Network. I presented with Lynn Fuchs from Vanderbilt University and John Carruth, an assistant superintendent from Vail, AZ. It was a great pleasure to work with Lynn, who has contributed so much to the fields of special and general education, and with John, who has provided exemplary leadership in implementing RTI in his school district. In 90 minutes, I think we provided a good overview of the use of assessment within a three-tier model, focusing on screening/benchmark assessment, progress monitoring, and diagnostic assessment. You can access the forum at www.connectlive.com/events/rtinetwork043009/.

The Critical Components of RTI

By Joseph Kovaleski, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

I am pleased to be doing a blog about RTI for CEC. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a professor of school psychology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, which is in the town of Indiana, Pa. During my career in education, I have worked as a school psychologist, a coordinator of special education, and a technical assistance provider for our state’s resource system. During the 1990s, I directed Pennsylvania’s Instructional Support Team (IST) Project, which was a precursor to RTI.

In addition to teaching at the university, I have been working with Dr. Ed Shapiro of Lehigh University in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) on our state-wide implementation of RTI. About four years ago, we started RTI in seven pilot schools and have seen numerous schools begin implementation of RTI throughout the state. Although I have experience consulting in other states, much of what I will address will come from my experiences here in Pennsylvania, as that experience is “closer to the ground.” Hopefully my comments will resonate with everyone, regardless of location.