The success of progress monitoring within an RTI model relies on a number of factors. First and foremost, each school’s culture of urgency, accountability, and attention to detail shapes how RTI plans look and how regularly they’re updated. Some schools are swift to provide support to classroom teachers that matches their expectation, including additional work time dedicated to those receiving tier 1, differentiated classroom instruction. Other schools are more flexible about weekly or biweekly monitoring, but meet tenaciously at the 6-8 week mark between tiers and record progress as a team.
Progress monitoring during tiers 1 and 2 is crucial to servicing students and their families effectively. As part of the RTI team at my current school, I’ve experienced varying levels of success with holding teachers accountable to weekly monitoring. This year, rather than asking for detailed notes we asked that classroom teachers simply check a box [not so different from scoring IEP goals] to qualify the level of growth, and then summarize details of progress during team meetings. Of course, tier 2 interventionists are still expected to include specific details outlining points of strength and weakness.
How can we ensure that once a student is identified as at risk, teachers will maintain up-to-date, specific information about that student? This question becomes more important if an evaluation recommendation enters the discussion. As I explore new professional settings, I’m most interested to learn about the structures in place to support teachers, students, and families through the RTI process.
Teaching, Leading & Learning 