RTI Boot Camp: Getting Off to a Good Start

1
RTI Boot Camp Getting Off to a Good Start
USDOE Personal Preparation 84.325H
A. Kendrick, N. Oroszi, L. Ebersole, A. Shank, J.
King, E. Lindstedt
Department of Communication Sciences and
Disorders, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
Abstract
each students needs is essential in implementing
effective instruction. The goal of RTI is to
target literacy and academic development before
language and literacy failure occurs. Uniquely
qualified SLPs with a desire to implement an RTI
model will need to reinvent their traditional
service delivery model by advocating for new
forms of involvement, including 1) classroom
collaboration with teachers and staff to provide
support, 2) instruction to better organize and
structure information for whole class instruction
as well as that for individual students, and 3)
the provision of classroom-based services as part
of the restructured service delivery model.
only specialized service delivery method employed
is 20 minute increments of classroom literacy
instruction. Initial high, some and low risk
score rankings were used to categorize the 53
kindergarten subjects from the RTI-designated
school (using the Houghton Mifflin Reading
Program) and the 49 subjects from the non-RTI
school (using the Success for All reading
program). The average improvement of mid-year
and end of year DIBELS subtest scores for each
risk group were compared to determine the
efficacy of each type of intervention.
Subsequently, interviews were conducted with the
RTI schools personnel to determine their views
on successful implementation of the intensive RTI
model. Conclusions about the results of the
study were drawn from the interviewees opinions
and from information obtained from literature
reviews relative to RTI service delivery.
Examination of the ISF scores of the students
who received the intensive RTI intervention, in
comparison to those who did not receive that type
of support, indicate an average score gain of
4.55 in the high risk category. The students not
receiving RTI intervention had average score
gains of 5.1 and 2.63 in some risk and low risk
categories, respectively. The LNF scores of the
RTI intervention students, in comparison to those
students who did not receive that type of
support, reflect an average score gain of 10.11,
12.5, 12.02 in high risk, some risk, and low risk
categories, respectively. These data indicate an
increase in performance for students receiving
the intensive RTI intervention. Finally, a
comparison of the PSF scores for the RTI
intervention and non-RTI intervention student
groups demonstrate an average score gain of 12.0,
22.0 and 2.44 in high risk, some risk, and low
risk categories, respectively. These data
indicate a greater increase in performance for
students receiving RTI. The teachers,
principal, clinical supervisors, and the speech
pathologist at the participating RTI school were
interviewed to determine overall views regarding
how RTI interventions have influenced their
classroom instruction, childrens literacy
performance, and case load changes over the past
3 years. Teachers and clinical supervisors were
asked about which aspects of the intervention
were most effective in their classrooms teachers
reported that clinician models influenced their
ability to provide better phonemic cues. The
principals explanations for the childrens
improved literacy performance were that RTI
interventions had a significant positive
influence. Finally, the speech pathologist was
asked questions regarding her level of
involvement with RTI, as well as the impact of
RTI on her caseload. Her responses indicated
that the majority of her responsibilities with
RTI include collaboration with classroom
teachers. She further stated she has seen a
notable decrease in language referrals for
kindergarteners at risk for academic failure.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a prevention
approach used to avoid academic failure in the
early elementary years. Before students are
identified as learning disabled, RTI provides an
opportunity for them to receive extra
classroom-based academic support using a
three-tiered model designed to meet each
students individual needs. This study examines
how kindergarten childrens performance at one
Title I school using RTI was affected by the
intensive classroom support of graduate level
speech language pathology clinicians trained in
literacy instruction. The results from a
standardized literacy based assessment, DIBELS
(Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills), were compared to scores from another
Title I school not receiving intensive clinician
instruction. The results indicate that RTI is
effective in increasing childrens literacy
skills, thus reducing the risk for academic
failure before children have the chance to fail.

Clinical Application
Many school-based SLPs, expected to implement
an RTI model in their school, may initially feel
overwhelmed when that expectation is added to
their already extensive list of responsibilities.
While SLPs concerns may be valid, information
gathered during interviews with school personnel
indicated that the time invested in establishing
an RTI model is worthwhile. To that end and in an
effort to encourage SLPs anxiously considering
RTI model implementation, the following first
hand tips were derived from the school personnel
interviews. First, recruit principal support
and that of fellow teachers so the SLP can
restructure his/her schedule to provide
nontraditional, RTI classroom-based instruction.
Second, classroom collaboration and in-service
trainings will educate key school personnel on
the importance of language as the basis for the
entire curriculum and literacy instruction.
Third, enlist help to implement RTI interventions
by taking the time to train teachers, aides and
volunteers on high quality, research-based
literacy intervention instruction. Finally, keep
in mind the purpose of RTI is the prevention of
language and literacy problems by providing early
intervention, thereby reducing the number of
language referrals. Consequently the time
invested in establishing an RTI model is
worthwhile for the cautious SLP. In fact, the
SLPs involvement in RTI implementation will
ultimately reduce the number of language
referrals and hence reduce the SLPs caseload.
Results
Introduction
In previous research, 75 of children with
reading disabilities in grade 3 who did not
receive early intervention continued to have
difficulties learning to read throughout life
(Lyon, 2001). ASHA defines RTI as a process that
is a multi-tiered approach to providing services
and interventions to struggling learners at
increasing levels of intensity. Speech language
pathologists can be a valuable asset for schools
implementing RTI to support young readers.
  The Communication Sciences and Disorders
Department (CSD) at Northern Arizona University
was awarded a United States Department of
Education (USDOE) grant targeting the training of
graduate clinicians for classroom-based services
coupled with the Responsiveness to Intervention
(RTI) mandates of IDEA 04. This model presents
new possibilities for training graduate
clinicians to provide RTI services in close
collaboration with teachers.   Research
demonstrates that the RTI approach can have a
powerful influence on the improvement of early
literacy skills, consequently decreasing the
number of special education and speech language
referrals. Many school districts nationwide are
adopting an RTI service delivery model and SLPs
are seeking information on how to effectively
employ this robust intervention.

Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that RTI
can be an effective method of intervention in
promoting early literacy skills and identifying
children at risk for reading failure. Scores on
both the LNF and PSF indicate noticeable gains
between the beginning and end-of-the-year
performance scores of students in all three risk
categories. On the ISF subtest, non-RTI
intervention school students in the low risk
and some risk categories scored higher than
their RTI counterparts. In an attempt to explain
the aforementioned outcomes, interviewed teachers
and the clinical supervisor proposed several
factors which could contribute to those outcomes,
including, but not limited to quality of
classroom instruction, time dedicated to specific
literacy activities, extra classroom support such
as student teachers, parents and volunteers, home
support as well as additional literacy
intervention. Importantly, those students
identified as high risk (those of greatest
concern) demonstrated significant gains on all
three subtests given their responsiveness to
intervention (RTI).
References
Ehren, Barbara J. RTI An Opportunity to
Reinvent Speech Language Services in Schools.
The ASHA Leader, 12, 10-12 Justice, Laura M.
(2006). Evidence-based practice, response to
intervention, and the prevention of reading
difficulties. Language, Speech and Hearing
Services in School, 37, 284-297. Lyon, Ried.
(2001). Measuring Success Using Assessments and
Accountability to Raise Student Achievement.
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from Center for
Development and Learning. Web sitehttp//www.cd
l.org/resourcelibrary/articles/measure_success.php
. Walpole, S., Chow, S.M., Justice, L.M.
(2004). Literacy achievements during
kindergarten Examining key contributors in an
at-risk sample. Early Education and Development,
15, 245-264. T. Ziegler (personal communication,
October 1, 2007) J. Cencioso (personal
communication, October 3, 2007)
Methods
Graduate level clinicians were trained to
deliver early literacy intervention using direct,
intensive, explicit, and systematic instruction
with the RTI model in three kindergarten
classrooms in the Flagstaff Unified School
District (FUSD). The kindergarteners progress
was monitored using the DIBELS assessment,
routinely administered at the beginning, middle,
and end of the school year. The DIBELS reading
assessment includes the subtests Initial Sounds
Fluency (ISF), Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), and
Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) students
were assessed according to test protocol and test
scores classified the childrens literacy skills
into three categories 1) Low Risk (Established)
2) Some Risk (Emerging) and 3) High Risk
(Deficit). This study examined kindergarteners
performance in two comparable elementary schools.
The first school is a Title I RTI- designated
school that approaches literacy intervention and
support  by providing high quality classroom
instruction coupled with intensive CSD
clinician-delivered literacy intervention. While
the comparison Title 1 school also targets
literacy skill development, the

Conclusions
Acknowledgements
RTI can be an effective prevention approach for
literacy failure when employed with intensive and
individually tailored instructional methods in
combination with high quality instruction. At the
RTI designated school in this study, increases in
average performance gains on LNF and PSF subtests
demonstrate that tailoring intervention to
Special thanks to the faculty, students, and
staff at Thomas Q. Elementary and Kinsey
Elementary schools in the Flagstaff Unified
School District.