RTI and Scores

RTI and Scores

Running Head: RTI and Scores

Response to Intervention and Test Scores

Robin Lynch-Woodley
Spring 2015
Western Oregon University

RTI and Scores

RTI and Scores

Introduction
Response to Intervention or RTI as it is often referred to as, is a notable
buzzword in education today. In this paper, I will look at how RTI came to be
and what it means for helping children learn, and how it can be used to help
identify children with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and how it relates to
achievement scores (Hale, 2008). For this we will look at third grade
students and use the reading scores associated with the EasyCBM
(Curriculum Based Measurements) that were researched and designed by the
University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon. Students involved in intervention
groups will show higher overall rate of growth on the EasyCBM reading tests
compared to students who do not participate in the intervention groups.
Rate of growth, also called slope, indicates how much a students reading
skills have improved over time (Skow, 2009).

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of intervention
groups on third grade students as it relates to test scores on the EasyCBM
assessments given twice a year in reading. EasyCBM is the district-wide
adopted method of measuring student achievement. For this study, I will use
the experimental design.
. Review of Related Literature

RTI and Scores

3

In 2004, Congress made some major changes to the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act or IDEA 2004. One of these changes included RTI.
It was determined that we could serve many more students under the RTI
model than under the old discrepancy model (Hale, 2008). Overall, this
changed was embraced and was seen as a way to help struggling students
that couldnt be helped under the old system. RTI is based on the idea that if
you provide high quality instruction and regularly monitor how they are
doing, all students will succeed and achieve high standards (Hale, 2008). It
also introduced the idea of
scientifically research based instruction, (Bruce, 2009). This IDEA with the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasized the quality of instruction that all
children receive in school. The goal was to make sure that all children
receive high quality instruction (Bruce, 2009). It is also designed to help
students not fall behind in reading. Research suggests that once students
fall behind in reading skill development, they are unlikely to catch up to their
peers (Amity Noltemeyer, 2014).
Under the old system, there was the regular education for the typical
student and then there was the Special Education room. In many cases, the
Special Education room became more of a place and not really a service
(Hale, 2008). The result of this is that too many students continued to
struggle and there seemed to be a wall that separated the regular education
with the special education aspect of schools. In addition, many students
had to wait to fail in order to get any help what-so-ever. This system also

RTI and Scores

required struggling students to be labeled with a disability before extra help
4

was given. With RTI you avoid the needless labeling because it focuses on
helping all children learn and modifying instruction to meet their needs
(Hale, 2008). As a result, RTI has gained critical acclaim and widespread
support.
While RTI can look different in different schools, all should have the
same components. Every RTI should have scientifically research based
instruction in general education classroom, should have a school wide
screening that identifies students who may be at risk for falling behind or
having achievement deficits, continuous progress monitoring of students
who are identified as at risk, use of programs and curriculum correctly and
in the way that they are intended. Schools also must make sure that parents
are aware of their rights and answer any questions that they might have
both before and during the process, (Bruce, 2009).
However, there are some things that RTI is not designed to do. These
include having students receive special seating in the classroom, shortened
assignments, parent-teacher conferences, suspension, retention or more of
the same general classroom instruction (Bruce, 2009). What RTI is designed
to do is deliver instruction to students in tiers or levels. There has been
much discussion about how many levels or tiers should be in the RTI model.
While IDEA does not specify how many tiers RTI should contain or how long
each student should remain in one tier before moving to another, the most

RTI and Scores

common amount of tiers found in RTI is three (Bruce, 2009). However, the
5

US Department of Education gave states the ability to determine the amount

of tiers that work best for them. In Oregon, we use the three tier approach.
This process is designed to allow schools to identify struggling students early
and provide appropriate instructional interventions. By identifying students
early, it means a greater chance for success and less need for special
education services (Bruce, 2009). However, one thing that has not been
addressed is the additional stress and pressure put on Special Education
teachers now that the RTI model has been adopted. On paper, they may
only have 20-30 students on their caseload, but in reality they are serving a
greater number of students on a daily basis.
Tier 1 is what happens in the classrooms as teachers work with the
students. This tier meets approximately 80-85% of students needs. This is
what teachers do day in and day out to meet the needs of their students.
Tier 2 is when instruction occurs outside of the classroom or in small groups
within the classroom. The intervention curriculum supplements the core
curriculum but does not replace it. For example, targeted reading instruction
could be used in this tier. Tier 3 includes conversations and action to help
students based upon their tier 1 and 2 RTI activity and outcomes. Most
intervention is provided to individuals or small groups of students and
delivered by an intervention specialist or special education specialist.
Students are not necessarily identified as learning disabled. Only a small

RTI and Scores

percentage of these students will go on to require special education services
6

(Response to Intervention Tiers).

Progress monitoring is an essential part of the RTI process. It is used
to assess student progress and performance in those areas in which they
were identified by the universal screening as being at-risk of failure (Hughes,
2012). It should be done at the very least once per month, and possibly biweekly or even weekly depending on the student and the level of risk.

The

process of progress monitoring should be able to be completed quickly and

easily by classroom teachers, intervention teachers or paraprofessionals. In
order to make this monitoring effective, teachers must be trained in how to
administer and interpret the results of the progress monitoring (Hughes,
2012). Even though progress monitoring is typically used to follow the
performance of individual students who are at risk for learning difficulties, it
can also be used to follow an entire classroom of students (Hughes, 2012).
This monitoring will give educators a rate of growth or slope. This rate of
growth can be used to determine whether each student is responding
adequately to the instruction being received and make appropriate
instructional decisions accordingly, (Skow, 2009). Research has determined
that a minimum of five data points is required in order to adequately assess
a students response to instruction, (Skow, 2009). Most experts agree that in
order for data points to be accurate, there needs to be at least a minimal
amount of instruction given. If a student is progressed monitored every
other week and was absent for more than half of the instructional time, the

RTI and Scores

two data points are not accurate. If this student isnt making progress, is it a
7

result of the instruction or is it a result of the attendance.

RTI is a data driven program. In order for a student to be determined
eligible to begin RTI or in order for a student to graduate, the team members
have to provide adequate data to support that decision. Test scores,
classroom performance and assignments, as well as observations can be
used to make these determinations. Teams of teachers, the RTI lead, and or
the school counselor and administrators meet to make these determinations.
Many experts believe that children have not received the type of
instruction they need in order to be successful. The regular classroom core
curriculum often leaves out one or more of the five essential components
required for effective reading instruction as determined by the National
Reading Panel (Bruce, 2009). Implementing RTI in schools should go a long
ways in eliminating this problem.
There are a substantial number of schools implementing RTI programs.
As a result, there is some research that supports its use for improving
student reading outcomes (Amity Noltemeyer, 2014). According to
Noltemeyer, researchers found that during 10 years of RTI implementation in
one Minnesota school district, students experienced increases in
performance on curriculum-based and standardized reading assessments
(Amity Noltemeyer, 2014). They also looked at the RTI model in Idaho. This
study had about 1,400 students in kindergarten through third grade.

RTI and Scores

Researchers found positive reading outcomes. Students with intervention
8

plans developed through the RTI process improved significantly more in

reading than peers on intervention plans in non-RTI implementing schools
(Amity Noltemeyer, 2014).
Overall, RTI is a great program that is being used extensively in
elementary schools across the country. Implementing RTI is a complex
process that requires collaborative and inter-dependent work to make it
successful. Teachers, administrators, school counselors, specialists and
paraprofessionals all need to work together with the common goal of
increasing the reading scores. Using data to make decisions on intervention
groups takes the guesswork out of educational decision making. By
providing early, high quality intervention groups, fewer students will be
referred to Special Education and more struggling students will be receiving
the assistance that they need in order to be successful.

Statement of the Hypothesis

Students in the 3rd grade, who are involved in intervention groups, will
show a higher rate of growth in their second round of EasyCBM assessments
than students not involved in intervention. These students will receive four
30 minute sessions of high quality small group instruction per week.

Method

RTI and Scores

Participants
9

The sample for this study was selected from third graders enrolled in
Joseph Conger Elementary School in Klamath Falls, Oregon. There are
currently 90 students enrolled in 3rd and I chose to use 2/3 or 60 students in
this study. The students that were involved in intervention groups were
predetermined by a team of teachers. The rest of the students were
randomly chosen from each of the three classrooms. The population was
80% white students consisting mostly of middle to lower economic class.
The rest of the population is a mixture of Hispanic, Native American, Asian
American and African American students. There were approximately 5% of
students identified as Special Education students that were on an IEP
(Individualized Educational Plan).

RTI and Scores

Instrument
10

The test used for this study was the district-wide adopted standard for
assessment, EasyCBM. This assessment program was created by the
University of Oregon and is now seen as a very reliable way to monitor
progress and collect data about students. It is administered as a one minute
fluency test. Students are given a passage to read while an adult is following
along. After the minute, the total number of words are measured and
recorded. Then, the number of errors that were made are also documented
and subtracted from the words read. This is the number of correct words
read per minute. These passages were pre-determined by EasyCBM and
were grade specific. Each student was given the same instructions and
same passage to read.

RTI and Scores

Experimental
Design
11
The design of this study was quas

Students That Had 30 minutes Intervention Groups Four

Times a Week
Name

First Score

1. Marcus
2. Molly
3. Matthew
4. Emerald
5. Robert
6. Zoey
7. Jesse
8. Rachel
9. Donald
10. Dawn
11. Gage
12. Nolan
13. Mandy
14. River
15. Allie
16. Hunter
17. Morgan
18. Abel
19. Carrie
20. Lucas
21. Emery
22. Oliver
23. Carl
24. Tony
25. Jeff
26. Casey
27. Jimmie
28. Sarah
29. Dale
30. Jeremy
Mean
Standard

17
12
15
20
13
11
17
15
14
22
25
9
18
11
17
22
3
15
7
12
18
21
11
2
6
15
23
18
17
0
14.2

Second
Score
70
55
62
64
55
67
71
65
54
72
52
61
54
47
38
49
41
77
46
79
58
69
54
37
37
52
71
47
52
48
56.8

Difference
53
43
47
44
42
56
54
50
40
50
27
52
36
36
21
27
38
62
39
67
40
48
43
35
31
37
48
29
35
48

Percentage

RTI and Scores

Deviation
12

6.26

11.83

Students Not Involved In Intervention Reading Groups

Name

First Score

Second
Score

Difference

Percentage

1. John A
2. Jane A

32
40

85
97

53
57

38%
41%

3. Joe
4. Jill
5. Jim
6. Jenny
7. Jerry
8. Jennifer
9. Juan
10. Julie
11. Julio
12.
Penelope
13. Blane
14. Hallie
15. Aaron
16. Megan
17. Joseph
18. Juanita
19. Robert
20. Kayla
21. Cecil
22. Sierra
23. Troy
24.
Cheyenne
25. Logan
26. Charity
27. Matt
28. Rebecca
29. Marc
30. Becky

31
29
28
44
41
37
38
49
31
52

77
47
88
69
78
59
96
89
77
80

46
18
60
25
37
22
58
50
46
28

40%

28
31
33
39
41
37
35
27
48
33
35
44

59
66
72
81
55
69
77
58
91
88
74
69

31
35
39
42
14
32
42
31
43
55
39
25

51
35
29
37
41
33
36.97

81
73
75
68
88
55
74.7

30
38
46
31
47
22

7.02

12.78

Mean
Standard
Deviation

RTI and Scores

13

Figure 1 Experimental Design

Group
Posttest
1

Assignment

Staff Recommendation
EasyCBM

Random

30

Treatment

30

Intervention

Traditional Instruction

EasyCBM

Procedure
All students were given the same EasyCBM one minute reading fluency
test in September of the school year. Based on this information, students
were identified as at high risk, medium risk or low risk for falling behind in
reading. The test score data was used to determine students who would
benefit from intervention groups. These students were placed in small
groups based on similar needs. Then specific curriculum was chosen to best
meet the needs of the group. All students would receive classroom
instruction on a daily basis. Identified students would also receive an extra
30 minutes of high quality instruction in the small group settings four times a
week. Students in the intervention groups would be progress monitored biweekly to make sure students were making progress.
This study would run approximately seven months, from October
through May. This would give educators enough time to assess students and
identify the ones that need to be in intervention.

RTI and Scores

14

RTI and Scores

Results
15

Prior to the beginning on the school year, test scores were looked at
from the previous year. After every student had been given the EasyCBM
one minute passage reading fluency and the data had been entered into the
program, educators met to discuss the results. Based on this data and data
collected in the classroom, educators made decisions on the needs of
students.

Intervention Groups

Non-Intervention

Groups
First Scores
M
SD

14.2
6.26

36.97
7.01

56.8
11.83

74.7
12.78

Second Scores
M
SD

RTI and Scores

16

Discussion
The results of this study support the original hypothesis: 3rd grade
students who were identified by staff and enrolled in intervention groups
showed higher test scores than students not enrolled in intervention groups.
This supports current research that supports the use of RTI groups to help
struggling students become more successful in school. While this doesnt
solve all the issues with struggling students, it does offer a viable alternative
to letting kids keep struggling in a mainstream classroom without any help
until labeled with some kind of Learning Disability. Anything that educators
can do to help more students succeed in school is beneficial.

RTI and Scores

17

Bibliography
Albrecht, K. A. (2015). The ABCs of RTI: An Introduction to the Building Blocks of
Response to Intervention. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 83-89.
Amity Noltemeyer, W. B. (2014). Assessing School-Level RTI Implementation for
Reading: Development and Piloting of the RTIS-R. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 40-52.
Bruce, S. (2009, 02 27). A Parent's Guide to Response to Intervention (RTI).
Retrieved May 15, 2015, from Writeslaw: www.wrightslaw.com
Flynn, L. J. (2013). Speicial Education in a 4-Year Response to Intervention (RTI)
Environment: Characteristics of Students with Learning Disability and Grade
of Identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 98-112.
Hale, J. B. (2008). Response to Intervention: Guidelines for Parents and
Practitioners. Retrieved May 20, 2015, from Wrightslaw: www.wrightslaw.com
Hughes, D. D. (2012). Progress Monitoring Within a Response-to-Intervention Model.
Retrieved May 15, 2015, from RTI Action Network: www.rtinetwork.org
Response to Intervention Tiers. (n.d.). Retrieved 5 1, 2015, from Software Answers:
www.software-answers.com/Solutions
Skow, J. B. (2009). RTI: Data-Based Decision Making. Retrieved 05 01, 2015, from
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wpcontent/uploads/pdf_case_studies/ics_rtidm.pdf

RTI and Scores

18