1. 6/8/11
RTI:
A
Systemic
and
Comprehensive
Professional
References
Model
for
Literacy
Improvement
 Dorn, L. & Henderson, S. (2010). A comprehensive assessment
system as a response to intervention method. In P. Johnston (Ed.),
RTI in Literacy: Responsive and Comprehensive. Newark, DE: IRA.
 Dorn, L. & Schubert, B. (2010). A comprehensive intervention
model for preventing reading failure: A response to intervention
process. In P. Johnston (Ed.), RTI in Literacy: Responsive and
Comprehensive. Newark, DE: IRA.
 Dorn, L. & Henderson, S. (2010). A comprehensive intervention
model: A systems approach to RtI. In M. Y. Lipson, M. & K. K.
Linda
Dorn,
PhD.
Wixon (Eds.), Successful approaches to RTI: Collaborative
practices for improving K-12 literacy. Newark, DE.
Professor,
Director,
Center
for
Literacy
University
of
Arkansas
at
LiFle
Rock
 Dorn, L. & Soffos, C. (2011). Interventions that work: A
comprehensive intervention model for preventing reading failure.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Themes
of
RTI
 High
quality,
research-­‐based
core
literacy
instrucMon
 Research-­‐based
intervenMons
with
levels
of
intensity
 Alignment
between
classroom
and
supplemental
instrucMon
 School-­‐embedded
professional
development
that
focuses
on
teaching
and
learning
Changing
Literacy
Outcomes
by
Changing
People
• MulMple
and
balanced
assessments
with
emphasis
on
formaMve
assessments
A
Comprehensive
and
Systemic
Approach
A
systemic
and
An
intervenMon
that
is
grounded
in
the
comprehensive
belief
that
teachers
are
the
agents
for
approach
calls
transforming
schools,
and
that
school-­‐ upon
every
team
embedded
professional
development
and
every
teacher
creates
an
authenMc
context
for
developing
to
idenMfy
and
teacher
experMse,
thus
reducing
the
literacy
aFack
areas
for
gap
and
ensuring
success
for
all
students.
improvement.
1

2. 6/8/11
Three
Levels
of
IntervenMons
A
System
of
IntervenMons
School
Culture
School
Culture
Transforming
Schools
Professional
Development
Teacher
PercepMons
and
Knowledge
To
get
started
with
Response
to
IntervenMon,
you
must
first
Three
Problems
idenMfy
and
aFack
the
problem.
That
Impact
the
Literacy
Achievement
Work
on
causes,
not
symptoms.
Get
to
the
root
of
the
problem
and
dissolve
the
root!
1)
The
Special
EducaMon
Problem
2)
The
Poverty
Problem
 Number
of
children
idenMfied
as
LD
in
special
 Poverty
is
the
single
biggest
predictor
for
a
child’s
failure
in
school.
educaMon
has
increased
dramaMcally
since
1975
 The
average
middle-­‐class
child
has
been
exposed
to
 80-­‐90%
of
children
idenMfied
as
LD
are
impaired
as
many
as
1,700
hours
of
one-­‐on-­‐one
reading
in
reading
while
the
average
low-­‐income
child
has
been
exposed
to
25
hours.
 Many
children
in
special
educaMon
may
be
 Children
of
poverty
cannot
be
educated
with
the
instrucMonal
casualMes
because
they
did
not
get
same
amount
of
money
as
higher-­‐income
children.
adequate
instrucMon
prior
to
idenMficaMon
 RemediaMon
programs
are
grounded
in
a
deficit
model,
in
contrast
to
layered,
accelerated
approaches.
hFp://www.jstart.org/site/DocServer/America_s_Early_Childhood_Literacy_Gap.pdf?
docID=3923
2

3. 6/8/11
The
Widening
Poverty
Gap
3)
The
Data
Problem
A
substanMal
gap
between
between
• Too
many
schools
use
data
in
simplisMc
ways
students
in
high-­‐ (single
measure)
that
can
ignore
complex
issues
poverty
schools
and
low
in
learning.
poverty
schools
already
• As
a
result,
schools
may
engage
in
‘random
acts
exists
when
they
enter
of
improvement’
in
contrast
to
systemaMc
and
kindergarten,
and
it
focused
plans
for
improvement.
grows
to
an
average
of
• Therefore,
schools
react
by
treaMng
symptoms
three
or
four
years
by
and
ignoring
the
root
causes.
the
Mme
they
get
to
the
• In
the
process,
data
are
not
used
for
school
end
of
high
school.
improvement.
Some
QuesMons
to
Ask
Some
QuesMons
to
Ask
About
• How
does
the
school
perceive
the
struggling
PercepMons,
Programs,
reader?
• How
do
classroom
teachers
view
their
Processes,
and
PracMces
responsibility
for
teaching
the
lowest
students?
• How
is
reading
instrucMon
taught
in
the
classroom?
• Is
classroom
instrucMon
differenMated
to
meet
needs
of
diverse
learners?
QuesMons
(conMnued)
• What
intervenMons
are
in
place
for
the
struggling
readers?
Six
SoluMons
to
Transform
• What
are
the
qualificaMons
of
the
individuals
Schools
who
teach
the
struggling
students?
• Are
students
referred
to
special
educaMon
without
the
opportunity
to
parMcipate
in
high-­‐quality
instrucMon?
• What
assessments
are
used
to
make
these
decisions?
3

4. 6/8/11
Six
SoluMons
Solution 1: Create a culture for
1) Create
a
culture
for
learning
and
high
expectaMons
learning and high expectations
2) Provide
differenMated
core
instrucMon
as
the
first
line
of
defense
against
illiteracy
3) Implement
comprehensive
layered
intervenMons
for
struggling
readers
The
school
culture
determines
how
teachers
4) Build
instrucMonal
congruency
across
programs,
perceive
students’
learning,
what
instrucMonal
assessments,
and
intervenMons
methods
they
value
and
use
for
parMcular
students,
5) Provide
opportuniMes
for
teachers
to
collaborate
on
and
how
they
assess
student’s
literacy
learning.
ways
to
help
struggling
readers
6) Analyze
and
uMlize
data
for
conMnuous
improvement
8
Cultural
Forces
that
Impact
Literacy
Growth
• The
expectaMons
for
students’
thinking
and
learning
that
SoluMon
2:
Provide
differenMated
the
teacher
conveys
• The
rouMnes
and
structures
that
guide
the
life
of
the
core
instrucMon
as
the
first
line
of
classroom
• Teacher
and
student
language
that
the
teacher
uses
and
defense
against
illiteracy
students
use
and
conversaMons
they
engage
in
• The
opportuniMes,
work,
or
acMviMes
the
teacher
creates
for
students
• How
the
teacher
acts
and
what
the
teacher
models
for
students
• The
interacMons
and
relaMonships
between
the
teacher
and
students,
as
well
as
among
the
students
themselves
• The
physical
environment
and
arMfacts
present
in
the
room
Ritchart,
R.
(2002).
Intellectual
Character.
Jossey-­‐Bass.
CA.
p.
146-­‐147.
High Quality Core Instruction (Tier 1)
Core
InstrucMon
(Tier
1)
Research-­‐based
literacy
Within
a
Workshop
Framework
pracMces
Structured
rouMnes
and
predictable
frameworks
Congruency
across
classroom
curriculum
and
supplemental
programs
Seamless
conMnuum
up
the
grades
that
increases
in
complexity
and
sophisMcaMon
4

5. 6/8/11
Reading Workshop !"#$%&'($)"*+,-."/$%"0122.%.34154136"73'4%8,41$3
Framework
for
DifferenMaMon
Writing Workshop M =48H.34'"'(5%."
-.5%3136"2%$F"
M N5%6.4.H"'F5--"
6%$8)"F131P-.''$3"
134.%D.341$3"2$%"
•
Reading
Workshop
• WriMng
Workshop
13H.).3H.34"
)%$R.,4'" '48H.34'"Q($"H1H" – Mini-­‐Lesson
– Mini-­‐Lesson
Language Workshop M N.5,(.%"!''.''F.34" 3$4"%.')$3H"4$"
Q($-."6%$8)"-.''$3"
M"N.5,(.%" – Small
Group
Reading
InstrucMon
– Independent
WriMng
!''.''F.34"
– Workshop
Projects
– Small
Group
Mini-­‐Lessons
– WriMng
About
Reading
SC""#($-."T%$8)" BC""#($-."T%$8)"
G131P-.''$3""
Content Workshop
=(5%136"
>O5'.H"$3"" >O5'.H"$3"3..H'"$2" – Individual
and
Group
13H.).3H.34"Q$%&"
2%$F"5''163.H"
F5R$%14+"$2",-5''"P"
F1U.H"-.D.-C"" – Teacher
Conferences
Conferences
– Debriefing
and
Assessment
)%$R.,4'C"
Math Workshop VC""W3."P4$PW3."$%"
=F5--"T%$8)""
*$32.%.3,.'"54"
"@C""=F5--"T%$8)""""""
T81H.H"J.5H136"
• Content
Workshop
13'4%8,41$35-"-.D.-'"
:.''$3'""54""
13'48,41$35-"-.D.-'" • Language
Workshop
>$4(.%"'48H.34'"Q$%&"
$3""5''163.H")%$R.,4'" >$4(.%"'48H.34'"Q$%&"
54"13H.).3H.34" $3""5''163.H")%$R.,4'" – Mini-­‐Lesson,
Read
Aloud
– Mini-­‐Lesson
– InvesMgaMve
Units
in
Content
-.D.-'C" 54"13H.).3H.34"-.D.-'""
– Author/Genre/Text
Studies
M 73H1D1H85-"$%"'F5--" M N5%6.4.H" – Language
InvesMgaMons
Areas
6%$8)"45%6.4.H" 134.%D.341$3'">#$%H"
,$32.%.3,.'"
M N.5,(.%"
=48H+9"#%14136"!O$84"
J.5H1369"!''1'4.H" – Response
Logs
– Research
Teams
#%14136C"
5''.''F.34"
M N.5,(.%"!''.''F.34" – Small
Group
Work
– Individual
and
Group
– Teacher
Conferences
Conferences
"
" _
Debriefing
and
Assessment
0$%39":;"<"=$22$'9"*;">?5385%+9"@ABAC;"734.%D.341$3'"4(54"#$%&E"!"*$F)%.(.3'1D."
734.%D.341$3"G$H.-"2$%"I%.D.34136"J.5H136"/51-8%.;"K$'4$39"GLE"!--+3"<"K5,$3;""
Typical Classroom Schedule Using Workshop Framework
 Shared Reading Poetry (10 minute)  Language Studies (35 minutes)
 Language Mini-Lesson
 Spelling/Phonics (20 minutes)
SoluMon
3:
Implement
 Small Group Language
Investigations, teacher
 Reading Workshop: (90 minutes) conferences
comprehensive
layered
 Reading Mini-Lesson  Debriefing & Closure
 Small Group Instruction: Guided
Reading, Literature Discussion Group,  Writing Workshop (45 minutes)
Assisted Writing
 Reading Conferences
 Writing Mini-Lesson
 Independent Writing, teacher
intervenMons
for
sustaining
improvement
 Debriefing & Closure conference
 Math Workshop: (65 minutes)  Content Workshop (45 minutes)
 Math Mini Lesson  Content Mini-Lesson
 Small group math investigations,  Small group investigations,
teacher conferences content strategy groups
 Debriefing and Closure
 Lunch/Recess (50 minutes)
 Specials (40 minutes)
System
IntervenMons
in
a
Layered
4-­‐Tiered
Approach
Classroom
Literacy
Tier
1:
Core
classroom
program
with
differenMated
System
IntervenMons
Program
small
group
instrucMon
CR
Interven8on
Classroom
teacher
provides
If special education is the only significant
addiMonal
support
to
lowest
group.
intervention tool available in a school, it is
Tier
2:
Small
group
with
inevitable that the school will come to rely upon
Tiers
2
and
3
are
not
linear.
intensity
that
relates
to
group
that tool too frequently. A school with a multi-step
Small
Group
Interven8on
size
and
experMse;
duraMon
in
They
represent
degrees
of
or
group
depends
on
student
system of interventions arms itself with a variety of
intensity
for
1-­‐1
Interven8on
need
meeMng
tools for meeting the needs of its students and thus
student
needs.
Tier
3:
1:1
with
Reading
Recovery
in
1st
grade;
1:2
is more likely to find the appropriate strategy (p.
group
or
reading/wriMng
165)
Special
conferences
in
upper
grades
Educa8on
Tier
4:
Referral
process
aper
student
has
received
intervenMon
in
layers
1,
2,
DuFour,
R,
et
al.
(2004).
Whatever
it
Takes:
How
Professional
Learning
CommuniMes
All
intervenMons
are
dynamic
and
interacMve,
not
staMc
and
linear.
and
3
Respond
When
Kids
Don’t
Learn.
SoluMon
Tree.
Bloomington,
IN.
5

6. 6/8/11
Premises
for
Early
IntervenMon
Maintain
Focus
on
System
Goal
• Intervene
as
early
as
possible
before
confusions
To
change
the
achievement
profile
of
a
school
become
habituated
and
unthinking
reacMons
by:
• Provide
short-­‐term
services
that
focus
on
helping
•
providing
high
quality
intervenMons
young
readers
develop
strategies
for
efficient
that
increase
literacy
levels
of
low-­‐
problem
solving
in
conMnuous
texts
performing
children
• Make
data-­‐driven
decisions
about
the
intensity
of
•
providing
training
and
professional
intervenMons,
duraMon,
and
if
follow-­‐up
support
development
for
teachers
that
increase
is
needed.
knowledge
and
experMse
for
teaching
the
lowest
children.
A Wrap Around Model for Layering Interventions
 Reading
Recovery
Co
g
n
ntin
ldi
 Emergent
Language
&
Literacy
Group
ffo
gen
Layered
Sca
 Guided
Reading
Plus
Group
t Sc
nt
aff
 Assisted
WriMng
Group
nge
Support
old
nti
 InteracMve
WriMng
ing
Co
 WriMng
Aloud
Contingent Scaffolding
 WriMng
Process
Group
 Comprehension
Focus
Group
 Genre
Units
 Content
Units
Intensive
Intervention
Aligning and Layering Supplemental Interventions Within a Workshop Framework
RtI Plan for Aligning and Layering Literacy Interventions
Student Goal: Developing a Self-Regulated Learner
Student_____________________________________ Grade _____________ Classroom Teacher________________________ Date_______________
 Shared Reading Poetry (10 minute)  Language Workshop (35 minutes) Degrees of Intensity
Individual Small Group Whole Class Independent Work
 Language Mini-Lesson ! Reading Conference ! Guided Reading Group ! Read Aloud ! Familiar/Easy Reading
 Spelling/Phonics (20 minutes  Small Group Language Investigations, ! Writing Conference ! Literature Discussion Group ! Shared Reading ! Writing Process
Universal
teacher conferences ! Reading and Writing
Conferences
!
!
Mini-Lessons
Spelling/Phonics
!
!
Phonics or Vocabulary Tasks
Literature Extensions
RTI: Comprehension Focus Groups !
Classroom: Tier I
 Reading Workshop: (90 minutes) !
Language Investigations
Genre, Text, and Author
! Share Time !
!
Research Projects
 Reading Mini-Lesson  Debriefing & Closure Studies
Internet Projects
! Tailored Mini-Lessons
 Small Group Instruction: Guided Reading, 1:1 or Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration
Literature Discussion Group  Writing Workshop (45 minutes) ! Reading Conference ! Word Study (prior to Guided
Intervention
! Reading)
 Writing Mini-Lesson Writing Conference
layers of Support/Expertise
! Writing About Reading
 Reading Conferences
 Independent Writing, teacher !
(following Guided Reading)
RTI: Guided Reading Plus conference !
Language and Literacy Group
Assisted Writing Group
RTI: Assisted Writing RTI: Assisted Writing Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4 -5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration
RTI: Comprehension Focus Group RTI: Writing Process Group ! Guided Reading Plus Group ! Guided Reading Plus Group
Intervention Specialist
! Comprehension Focus Group ! Comprehension Focus Group
Tier II
 Debriefing & Closure  Debriefing and Closure ! Language and Literacy Group ! Language and Literacy Group
! Assisted Writing Group ! Assisted Writing Group
! Writing Process Group (push-in) ! Writing Process Group (push-in)
 Math Workshop: (65 minutes) 10:10-11:15  Content Workshop (45 minutes) 1:1 Plan/Monitoring/Duration
 Content Mini-Lesson !
Tier III
 Math Mini Lesson Reading Recovery
 Small group investigations, content ! Targeted Intervention (beyond
 Small group math investigations, teacher strategy groups
first grade)
conferences RTI: Content Strategy Group 1-1 Small Group (2-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration
! Targeted Intervention ! Guided Reading Plus Group
 Debriefing and Closure
Education
!
Special
Tier IV
Comprehension Focus Group
!
 Lunch/Recess (50 minutes) !
Language and Literacy Group
Assisted Writing Group
! Writing Process Group (push-in)
 Specials (40 minutes) Team Members Present: 215
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next Meeting:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6

7. 6/8/11
SoluMon
4:
Build
instrucMonal
congruency
across
programs,
Improvement is related to the extend
to which the school’s programs for
assessments,
and
intervenMons.
students and staff are coordinated,
focused on learning goals, and
sustained over a period of time.”
InstrucMonal
coherence
is
related
to
student
improvement.
Fullan,
M.
The
New
Meaning
of
EducaMonal
Change.
NY:
Teachers
College
Press.
Poor
Readers
Become
Even
More:
•
Confused
The
NegaMve
Consequences
of
•
Fragmented
Incongruent
Programs
on
•
Haphazard
Struggling
Readers
•
Dependent
which
all
can
lead
to
instrucMonal
disabiliMes
or
learned
helplessness
SoluMon
5:
Provide
opportuniMes
for
teachers
to
collaborate
on
ways
to
help
Building
a
Common
Philosophy
struggling
learners.
Among
Teachers
KaMe
Meyer,
Literacy
Coach,
Sheboygan,
Wisconsin
7

8. 6/8/11
Schoolwide Collaborative Efforts
System
Change
and
CollaboraMon
. . . schoolwide collaborative
professional learning is a critical factor in CollaboraMve
approaches
to
distinguishing high-performing, high- professional
learning
can
promote
poverty schools from high-poverty, school
change
that
extends
beyond
lower-performing schools individual
classrooms.
hFp://www.srnleads.org/resources/publicaMons/pdf/
nsdc_profdev_tech_report.pdf
• CollaboraMve
conferences
around
teaching
and
learning
Example
of
Cluster
Conference
– ApprenMceship
learning
in
authenMc
context
– Focused
observaMons
around
specific
Angela
Moix,
a
4th
grade
teacher,
seeks
teaching
goals
feedback
from
three
teachers
regarding
her
– Meaningful,
relevant,
and
immediate
reading
conference
with
a
student.
feedback
The
teacher
Sets
the
Focus
for
the
ObservaMon
• Student
Behaviors
Changing the context of schools to
– How
did
Cody
use
evidence
from
the
text
create settings for building and
to
support
his
inferences?
sharing learning among adults is
• Teacher
Behaviors
essential to produce learning for
– How
did
Angel
scaffold
Cody
to
achieve
this
students.
instrucMonal
goal?
8

9. 6/8/11
SystemaMc
Data
Analysis
• Analyze
individual
growth
over
Mme
in
Solution 6: Analyze and Utilize Data response
to
parMcular
intervenMons
for Continuous Improvement • Examine
data
for
closing
the
achievement
gap
• Keep
longitudinal
data
to
monitor
student
proficiency
• Use
data
to
intervene
when
learning
gets
off
track
and
provide
targeted
support
Types
of
Data
in
Planning
for
and
Sustaining
Systemic
Improvement
• Demographic
Use
FormaMve
Data
to
Monitor
• AFendance
Student
Progress
in
Response
to
• Drop-­‐out/graduaMon
rates
IntervenMon
• PercepMons
(teachers,
students,
parents)
• Student
Achievement
(mulMple
assessments)
• RetenMons
• Referrals
to
Special
EducaMon
Progress Monitoring Grade 2 Student: Teacher:
Book Level Record Instructional Level
N
M
L
K
Using
an
Assessment
Wall
for
J
I
H
Systemic
Data
Analysis
G
F
E
D
C
My New Pet, 98, 1:3
Little Mouse, 96, 1:2
The Storm, 95, 1:3
Sea Lights, 98, 1:2
Book Title,
Termites, 96, 1:3
Weather, 95, 1:4
Forecasting the
Accuracy
Rate, Self-
How
is
the
overall
literacy
Correction
Rate
achievement
of
the
school
changing?
16: 12/13-12/17
8: 10/18-10/22
Date of
24: 2/14-2/18
32: 4/18-4/21
End of Year
Progress
1: 9/1-9/3
Monitoring
Intervals
Week of
Intervention 01 08 16 24 32
How
can
data
be
monitoring
at
a
system
level?
Tier I CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI
GRP GRP GRP
Tier II GRP WA WA
Tier III
Tier IV
Layering and Mixing GRP: Guided Reading Plus IW: Interactive Writing WP: Writing Process
Interventions CFG: Comprehension Focus Group WA: Writing Aloud CRI: Classroom Intervention
9

10. 6/8/11
Assessment
Walls
• Provide
a
visual
display
of
change
over
Mme
in
a
school’s
literacy
performance
• Compare
and
monitor
progress
of
subgroups
in
literacy
areas
• Plan
for
intervenMons
in
targeted
areas
• Promote
understanding
of
the
link
between
assessment
and
instrucMon
1.
High
Quality
Classroom
InstrucMon
Designing
a
Comprehensive
• DifferenMated
framework
with
small
group,
IntervenMon
Model
for
Literacy
whole
group,
and
individual
instrucMon
Improvement
• Strategy-­‐based
lessons
• Reading
materials
at
easy
and
instrucMonal
levels
IdenMfy
key
elements
and
develop
school-­‐
• Built-­‐in
assessments
wide
plan
based
on
these
essenMal
elements
• Respectul
and
safe
climate
• Well-­‐organized
structures
2.
Research-­‐based
IntervenMons
3.
Seamless
and
Systemic
Assessments
• Provide
a
range
of
research-­‐based
• Seamless
assessment
system
with
emphasis
on
intervenMons
with
varying
degrees
of
formaMve
assessments
for
progress
monitoring
intensity
• Teachers
use
data
to
guide
their
instrucMonal
• Focus
on
early
intervenMon
for
prevenMng
decisions
reading
failure
• RTI
assessment
portolios
for
individual
children
• Emphasize
problem-­‐solving,
strategy-­‐based
• Assessment
walls
to
monitor
individual
and
intervenMons
system
progress
• Align
intervenMons
and
• Transparency,
accountability,
and
annual
reporMng
classroom
programs
10

11. 6/8/11
5.
Professional
Learning
CommuniMes
• Teacher
conferences
are
embedded
into
• Teachers
acquire
deeper
knowledge
of
how
school
plan,
including
intervenMon
children
learn
through
school-­‐embedded
conferences
and
cluster
(peer
group)
professional
development.
conferences.
• School
climate
fosters
opportuniMes
for
• RTI
conferences
focus
on
observing
children
in
classroom
seungs.
teachers
to
problem-­‐solve
around
teaching
and
learning
issues.
• Curriculum,
programs,
and
assessments
are
aligned
across
classroom,
supplemental,
and
Special
EducaMon
programs.
6.
Comprehensive
and
Seamless
Data
System
RTI:
A
Systemic
and
Comprehensive
Model
for
Literacy
Improvement
• Use
mulMple
assessments,
mostly
formaMve,
to
inform
instrucMon
• Focus
on
curriculum-­‐based
assessments
that
reflect
the
impact
of
teaching
on
student
outcomes
• Use
real-­‐word
assessments
that
involve
the
use
of
authenMc
and
meaningful
literacy
skills
and
Linda
Dorn,
PhD.
strategies
Professor,
Director,
Center
for
Literacy
• Study
data
across
programs,
grades,
University
of
Arkansas
at
LiFle
Rock
assessments,
and
over
Mme
11

12. 6/9/11
Example of RTI Scheduling Tier 2 Interventions Within a Workshop Framework
 Shared Reading Poetry (10 minute)  Language Workshop (35 minutes)
 Language Mini-Lesson
 Spelling/Phonics (20 minutes  Small Group Language Investigations,
teacher conferences
 Reading Workshop: (90 minutes) RTI: Comprehension Focus Groups
 Reading Mini-Lesson  Debriefing & Closure
 Small Group Instruction: Guided Reading,
Literature Discussion Group  Writing Workshop (45 minutes)
 Writing Mini-Lesson
 Reading Conferences
 Independent Writing, teacher
RTI: Guided Reading Plus conference
RTI: Assisted Writing RTI: Assisted Writing
RTI: Comprehension Focus Group RTI: Writing Process Group
 Debriefing & Closure  Debriefing and Closure
 Math Workshop: (65 minutes) 10:10-11:15  Content Workshop (45 minutes)
 Content Mini-Lesson
 Math Mini Lesson
 Small group investigations, content
 Small group math investigations, teacher strategy groups
conferences RTI: Content Strategy Group
 Debriefing and Closure
 Lunch/Recess (50 minutes)
 Specials (40 minutes)
RtI Plan for Aligning and Layering Literacy Interventions
Student Goal: Developing a Self-Regulated Learner
Student_____________________________________ Grade _____________ Classroom Teacher________________________ Date_______________
Degrees of Intensity
Individual Small Group Whole Class Independent Work
! Reading Conference ! Guided Reading Group ! Read Aloud ! Familiar/Easy Reading
! Writing Conference ! Literature Discussion Group ! Shared Reading ! Writing Process
Universal
! Reading and Writing ! Mini-Lessons ! Phonics or Vocabulary Tasks
Conferences ! Spelling/Phonics ! Literature Extensions
! Language Investigations ! !
Classroom: Tier I
Share Time Research Projects
! Genre, Text, and Author ! Internet Projects
Studies
! Tailored Mini-Lessons
1:1 or Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration
! Reading Conference ! Word Study (prior to Guided
Intervention
! Writing Conference Reading)
layers of Support/Expertise
! Writing About Reading
(following Guided Reading)
! Language and Literacy Group
! Assisted Writing Group
! Writing Process Group (push-in)
Small Group (2-3) Small Group (4 -5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration
! Guided Reading Plus Group ! Guided Reading Plus Group
Intervention Specialist
! Comprehension Focus Group ! Comprehension Focus Group
Tier II
! Language and Literacy Group ! Language and Literacy Group
! Assisted Writing Group ! Assisted Writing Group
! Writing Process Group (push-in) ! Writing Process Group (push-in)
1:I Plan/Monitoring/Duration
!
Tier III
Reading Recovery
! Targeted Intervention (beyond
first grade)
1-1 Small Group (2-5) Plan/Monitoring/Duration
! Targeted Intervention ! Guided Reading Plus Group
Education
!
Special
Tier IV
Comprehension Focus Group
! Language and Literacy Group
! Assisted Writing Group
! Writing Process Group (push-in)
Team Members Present: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next Meeting:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1

13. Framework for Early Intervening Services
Cooper Elementary School
Spokane Public Schools
Spokane, Washington
Cooper Elementary is one of the 35 K-6 schools located in the city of Spokane, Washington. The school has 501
students, of which 20% are minority, 10 % of which are students whose native language is other than English and 75
% of students receive free or reduced lunch.
The school uses a Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) as the Response to Intervention approach. The RtI
process emphasizes increasingly differentiated and intensified intervention in language and literacy. Classroom
teachers provide whole group, small group and individualized instruction that is responsive to the needs of all
students. Classroom teachers, literacy coaches, and reading specialists play a central role in conducting language and
literacy assessments and in using assessment to plan instruction and monitor student performance. The RtI model
includes collaborative decision-making that is based on the available evidence about the needs of students struggling
in language and literacy.
Our intervention framework is layered on top of a differentiated core curriculum. As an RtI process, the
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) employs a design of tiers within layers. The four tiers vary in intensity
and teacher expertise and include classroom intervention, small literacy groups, one-to-one, and special education.
The tiers are layered on top of each other simultaneously according to the needs of individual students. This “wrap
around” model of support has enabled the school to accelerate the achievement trajectory of low-performing
learners, thus enabling these students to catch up with the grade level peers and eventually meet rigorous district and
state standards. In first grade, Reading Recovery is fully implemented, ensuring that all students who need intensive
intervention are provided with this opportunity. At the end of 2007-2008, 87.5% of students who received Reading
Recovery were successfully discontinued after only 12-20 weeks of intervention. Additionally, the school provides
small group interventions to other low-performing students. Tiers 2 and 3 interventions, along with exemplary Tier 1
classroom instruction, ensure that all students continue to make gains commensurate with grade level peers.
The essential components of our RtI process are aligned with the six guiding principles of a successful RtI approach
as outlined by the International Reading Association:
• RtI is first and foremost intended to prevent language and literacy problems by optimizing instruction.
• The RtI process emphasizes small group and individualized instruction in reducing the number of students
who are at risk of becoming classified as learning disabled.
• Assessment should reflect the multidimensional nature of language and literacy learning and the diversity
among students being assessed.
• Reading specialists/literacy coaches should provide leadership in every aspect of the RtI process--
planning, assessment, provision of more intensified instruction and support, and making decisions about
next steps.
• RtI must be part of a comprehensive, systemic approach to language and literacy assessment and literacy
curriculum that guides comprehensive instruction for all students.
• Professionals who provide supplemental instruction/intervention must have a high level of expertise in all
aspects of language and literacy instruction and assessment and must be capable of intensifying or
accelerating language and literacy learning.
Results of rigorous district and state assessments of literacy achievement highlight the success of Cooper’s
Comprehensive Intervention Model. After initial implementation in 2006, 89% of fourth grade students met or
exceeded the state standard in reading. By the end of grade 6, 85.2% of students were meeting or exceeding
proficiency levels. These data included students who had not been continuously enrolled at Cooper or another
elementary school in the district. With the extension of the kindergarten program to a full day, 90% of students
achieved the end of year proficiency benchmarks by January. The population of Special Education students referred
has steadily declined since the CIM as RTI model has been implemented at Cooper Elementary. Special Education
staffing ratio at Cooper is currently at a 1.0 full time equivalent down from a full 2.0. This is reflective of a
successful effort to reduce referrals to and identification for special education services.
As further evidence of the overall quality of instruction and intervention model at Cooper, the school was
recognized as a Title I award winner for academic achievement in 2006. The achievement levels of Cooper students
continue to illustrate the high standard for academic excellence that the Cooper community holds for itself.
Contact: Rona Williams RonaW@spokaneschools.org
Cooper Elementary
Spokane Public Schools, 509-354-2500