Tools and Strategies to Establish and Reinforce Collective Commitments and Responsibilities

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 I.3).

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Each Student

Source: Buffum et al., 2018, p. 19. Figure I.3: Inverted RTI at Work pyramid.

Tier 1 is represented by the widest part of the pyramid because it constitutes the instruction that all students should receive. This is the school’s core instructional program (see figure I.4).

Access to essential grade-level standards for all students

Source: Buffum et al., 2018, p. 20. Figure I.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. However, Buffum et al. (2018) write:

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 belowgrade-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. (pp. 20–21)

Despite the best of efforts, every unit of study ends with most students having learned the essential learning outcomes and a few students still struggling. Because schools are dedicated to the idea that all students must master essential learning outcomes, it next provides additional time and support to help these students master essentials without missing critical new core instruction. This additional time and support are the purpose of Tier 2 (see figure I.5).

Access to essential grade-level standards for all students

Additional support to master essential grade-level standards

Source: Buffum et al., 2018, p. 21. Figure I.5: Supplemental help to master grade-level curriculum.

This is a crucial point! Traditional RTI approaches often define Tier 2 by either the size of the intervention group or the duration of the intervention. These recommendations are based largely on early RTI research focused on primary reading

interventions. Our experience shows us that this approach has limitations when applied across all grades and subjects. Instead, we recommend that the defining characteristics of Tier 2 are the learning outcomes being targeted. Supplemental assistance should focus on providing targeted students with the additional time and support needed to master specific skills, knowledge, and behaviors identified at Tier 1 to be 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 likely aligned to classroom assessments.

Equally important, for students that do master essential curriculum during core instruction, Tier 2 time can be used to extend their learning. To be clear, there is an important difference between extension and enrichment. Extension is when students are stretched beyond essential grade-level curriculum or levels of proficiency. We define enrichment as students having access to the subjects that specials or electives teachers traditionally teach, such as music, art, drama, applied technology, and physical education. We strongly believe that this curriculum is essential for all students (Buffum et al., 2018). Tier 2 time should be used for extension, not enrichment.

Providing all students access to essential grade-level curriculum and effective initial teaching during Tier 1 core instruction, as well as providing additional time and support to students at Tier 2, will result in success for most students. However, some students lack foundational skills needed to succeed at their grade level. 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 (Buffum et al., 2018, p. 22)

These foundational skills are much more than a student needing help in a specific learning target, but instead:

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 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. (Buffum et al., 2018, p. 22)

See figure I.6.

Access to essential grade-level standards for all students

Additional support to master essential grade-level standards

Intensive remediation in universal skills

Source: Buffum et al., 2018, p. 22. Figure I.6: Intensive remediation in foundational skills.

Universal skills are developed over time, not overnight. For this reason, schools need highly trained staff to provide Tier 3 remedial interventions, targeted specifically to each student’s areas of need, during the regular instructional day.

Finally, RTI is considered a multitiered system of supports because, as noted by Buffum et al. (2018):

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 student 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 student 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. (p. 23)

Creating this level of support cannot be done effectively by an individual teacher in his or her own classroom. Instead, it requires a schoolwide, collaborative effort

in which the entire staff take collective responsibility for student learning. It also requires continuous collaborative processes to create a guaranteed and viable curriculum and develop the ongoing common formative assessments needed to target Tier 2 interventions. At Tier 3, it requires the school to call on all its resources in an all-hands-on-deck effort to rescue those students needing intensive remediation at Tier 3. This is why structuring a school to function as a professional learning community is the key to effectively implementing RTI.

To make this point as clear and explicit as possible: Being a PLC is an essential prerequisite to successful RTI implementation. Specifically, we advocate for the Professional Learning Community at Work (PLC at Work) process, originally developed by Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker (1998). While this book includes many references to the PLC process, for a deeper dive into the specifics, we highly recommend the book Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016).

The Power of Intensive Tier 3 Remediation

Since Tier 3 remediation focuses on foundational skills and knowledge that students should have mastered in prior years of school, these efforts must be powerful in their effect. The term intensive is frequently used to describe Tier 3 remediation, but how is it defined? The following characteristics represent how to make remediation sufficiently intensive to help students who are years behind in the foundational skills (listed earlier) catch up with their peers. ᐁ High in frequency ᐁ Longer in duration ᐁ Within a small-size class ᐁ Targeted at deficiencies ᐁ Administered by highly trained professionals

A preponderance of the research underlying RTI suggests that Tier 3 interventions should be daily. Students should receive this additional support for five days per week (O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005). The duration of these supports should be longer than those received by students in Tier 2. Due to the complex nature of the problems faced by students at Tier 3, many researchers suggest a duration of approximately fifty minutes daily (Harlacher, Sanford, & Walker, n.d.). Of course, primary-aged students should not be subjected to fifty continuous minutes of remediation, but instead should have this time delivered in shorter segments.

Group or class size is one of the most daunting aspects of Tier 3 remediation. While many studies suggest a group size of 3:1 or less (Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2007;

Simmons et al., 2007), we find this almost impossible for most schools to accomplish. For this reason, we recommend that schools focus intently on the remaining two characteristics—targeted and administered by trained professionals—as a way of mitigating the need for extremely small group size.

The more highly targeted the remediation, the more effective it will be over time. For example, we often ask educators which of the two following scenarios might be most effective. 1. Four students are deemed to be low readers. One needs help with phonemic awareness, one with decoding, one with fluency, and one with comprehension. 2. Eight students need help with decoding.

Most educators indicate that the second scenario is most likely to be effective, more effective than the first scenario, despite the fact that the group size in the second example is twice that of the first. This results from the ability to closely target the intervention on the cause of the problem, even with more students, rather than loosely grouping fewer students based on a vague and generalized cause (for example, a letter grade of F).

Finally, teachers can achieve the intensity of Tier 3 remediation by utilizing our most highly trained educators to work with these students rather than our least trained. Many schools have traditionally assigned poorly trained paraprofessionals or first-year teachers to work with the neediest students. If hospitals worked this way, the patients needing the most help would be assigned to nurses or interns rather than specialists.

Common Tier 3 Implementation Mistakes

While few debate the need for intensive Tier 3 remediation, Buffum et al. (2018) state, “We have found that many site educators, district administrators, and state policymakers misinterpret key concepts, skip critical steps, look for shortcuts, and fail to discontinue traditional practices that are counterproductive to the RTI process” (p. 5).

Following are some of the key implementation mistakes educators make relative to Tier 3 remediation. 1. Assuming Tier 3 is only a special education process: This thinking is a pernicious holdover from the past in which a student’s failure in core instruction meant he or she must have a learning disability (Prasse, n.d.). This thinking was based on some forty years of waiting for kids to fail that were the unfortunate outcome of PL 94–142 (1975). This thinking has led to outrageous over-identification