Responsive Tiered Instruction (RTI) based on the EYE-TA

Responsive Tiered Instruction (RTI) calls for a tiered approach to instruction comprised of a continuous assessment of children’s progress in the regular classroom setting with additional support for children who have learning difficulties or behavioural challenges. Many jurisdictions use this kind of model to assist with early identification, intervention and resource allocation (Gersten et al., 2008).

RTI is a framework that helps teachers and school administrators ensure children receive the instructional resources they need to become successful readers. It is not an instructional approach or a strategy for grouping students in the classroom. RTI is an inclusive approach to meeting children’s learning needs as it calls for all children to receive Tier 1 instruction.

The literature uses the term ‘Response to Intervention’ as it calls for children to first receive Tier 1 instruction in the regular classroom. Children who do not seem to be responding to Tier 1 instruction are classified as requiring Tier 2 instruction. After a period of Tier 2 instruction, if a child is not responding well, he or she is classified as requiring Tier 3 instruction. Thus, the approach is called ‘Response to Intervention’.

We prefer the term Responsive Tiered Instruction because it uses data from the EYE as leading indicators, enabling teachers to identify children who are likely to need Tier 2 or Tier 3 instruction before they enter Grade 1. In most school jurisdictions, all children are assessed at the beginning of their kindergarten year, and those who are classified as having Tier 2 or Tier 3 learning needs are assessed again near the end of the school year before they enter Grade 1. Kindergarten teachers can use the RTI classification in combination with the domain-specific results to plan their instruction. Grade 1 teachers can use the results to plan ahead for the resources they will need for the upcoming year and ensure that children who score Tier 3 have the necessary further assessments for developing an individualised learning plan.

The three-tier RTI classification using the EYE-TA data is based on a prediction model that takes into account the age of the child at the time of assessment and their skill level in each of the five domains. The model, which is based on longitudinal data, weights some skills more heavily than others. Skills in the Cognitive Skills and Language and Communication domains figure most prominently, but children’s Fine Motor Skills, Awareness of Self and Environment, and their Social Skills and Approaches to Learning Skills also contribute to the classification. The results of our longitudinal analyses based on the EYE-TA are consistent with the “Simple View of Reading” (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), which maintains that the development of reading skills depends on two components: decoding and language comprehension. EYE skills in the Cognitive domain are aligned with decoding skills while EYE skills in the language and communication domain are directly related to language comprehension.

With this formula, we are able to use the RTI to discern which children are most likely to require extra support during the primary school years. At the division level, one can use the RTI data to help determine how best to allocate resources across schools. At the school and classroom levels, principals and teachers can use the RTI data to identify children who likely need extra support.

An RTI classification is not permanent or necessarily long term; it is not a label assigned to a child. As children are developing their literacy skills, their progress is monitored on a regular basis, using a variety of formal and informal tests. Teachers may find that some children with Tier 1 learning needs require a Tier 2 intervention, while some children with Tier 2 learning needs no longer need additional small-group instruction. Similarly, they may realize that some children with Tier 2 learning needs require a more intensive, Tier 3 intervention.

A Tier 2 or Tier 3 RTI classification does not mean a child has a specific learning or intellectual disability. It is simply an indication that a child may need extra instructional time and resources during the primary school years. The use of the Early Years Evaluation for RTI is a preventive approach. It can help educators allocate resources early and continuously, rather than waiting until children have experienced failure before responding effectively.

What is the difference between scores on the Class Report and RTI scores?

The EYE-TA Class Report provides average scores for each domain for each child. Then, based on this average score, the child will receive a result of green, yellow or red in that particular domain. For example, if a child receives an average score of 2 or greater in the Fine Motor domain then he or she will be assigned the colour ‘green’ for Fine Motor (please see the EYE-TA Teacher Implementation Guide for a detailed overview of scoring). These results are especially useful for classroom teachers, as they can use the data to plan whole-class, small-group and individual instruction. However, it is important to note that a prediction model does not determine these scores, as is the case with the RTI classification. This is one of the key differences between scores on the Class Report and RTI Scores.

Is it possible for a child to receive results that are green across domains and still end up in Tier 2?

In addition to weighting both the Cognitive and the Language and Communication domains more heavily, a small part of our RTI formula also takes into account the age of the child. Consequently, a child who is older for the cohort, and receives average scores in these domains that hover around 2, could lead to them being placed in Tier 2. However, this is a rare occurrence that will likely occur in less than 2% of the cases. We could have set the criteria less stringently, but our argument is that we do not want any “false negatives.” A false negative is when we say the child has Tier 1 learning needs, but then the child fails to become a successful reader. These are the children we say, “fell through the cracks”.

With our more stringent criteria, we do get a relatively high percentage of children with Tier 2 and Tier 3 learning needs. Among the children with Tier 2 learning needs, we have a fairly high percentage of “false positives.” For example, our EYE results suggest that a child who has Tier 2 learning needs and requires extra support, but then the child proves us wrong and does become a successful reader. However, among the children with Tier 3 learning needs, we have a fairly small percentage of false positives. The argument against setting such stringent criteria is that a division may be wasting resources by providing extra support for children who in fact would have acquired the skills with regular classroom instruction. However, we maintain that by the end of Grade 1, teachers will realize that a child with Tier 3 or Tier 2 learning needs is progressing well and does not need further extra support. Thus, there is relatively little money spent on extra support. Moreover, if the extra support did bolster some children’s skills from Tier 3 to Tier 2, or from Tier 2 to Tier 1, then it was not really a waste of resources.

References

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.