How does UDL MTSS and RTI work together

Atkin, J. M., Black, P. J., & Coffey, J. E. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy Press.

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.

Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, E., Levine, P., Newman, L., et al. (2004). SEELS: Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence: The achievements of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from http://www.seels.net/info_reports/engagement.htm

CAST. (2002-2006a). Curriculum barriers finder. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/tools/curriculumbarriers.cfm

CAST. (2002-2006b). UDL class profile maker. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/tools/classprofile.cfm

CAST. (2002-2006c). UDL solutions finder. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/tools/udlsolutionsfinder.cfm

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et al. (1997). The principles. Retrieved June 10, 2004, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm

Cytowic, R. E. (1996). The neurological side of neuropsychology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Dalton, B., & Coyne, P. (2002). Universally designed digital picture books to support beginning reading in children with cognitive disabilities. 52nd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. San Antonio, Texas.

Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Peabody: CAST.

Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., & Lutz, L. (2005). Shared reading project: chapter by chapter -- thinking reader: Final report. Wakefield, MA.

Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4), 22-25.

Erdner, R. A., Guy, R. F., & Bush, A. (1998). The impact of a year of computer assisted instruction on the development of first grade learning skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 369-386.

Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.

Frieden, L. (2004). Improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Retrieved September 8, 2004, from http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/NCD.pdf

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct., Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice (Vol. 18, pp. 157-171).

Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice (Vol. 18, pp. 172-186).

Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 103-110.

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.

Hay, L. (1997). Tailor-made instructional materials using computer multimedia technology. Computers in the Schools, 13(1-2), 61-68.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general education curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Jackson, R. (2005). Equal access, participation, and progress in the general education curriculum. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer & C. Hitchcock (Eds.). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 52-96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Howard, J. B. (2003). Universal design for learning: An essential concept for teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4), 113-118.

Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2000).

Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 38, pp. 569-572).

Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A Critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly (Vol. 28, pp. 2).

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, H. (1999). Best practices in operating pre-referral intervention teams in Pennsylvania. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 645-645). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Luria, A. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.

Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 38, pp. 539-544).

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 38, pp. 525-531).

Murray, E., & Hall, T. (2006). Science writer: A universally designed thinking writer for Science. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov//programs/digest/d03/

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.

Proctor, P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. (in press). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a digital environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. To appear in Journal of Literacy Research.

Rose, D., & Strangman, N. (in review). Universal access in the information society.

Rose, D. H., & Dolan, R. P. (2000). Universal design for learning: Assessment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4).

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Speece, D. L., & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 118-123.

Strangman, N. (2003). Strategy instruction goes digital: Two teachers' perspectives on digital texts with embedded learning supports. Reading Online, 6(9).

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 443-461.

Tilly, W. D. (2003). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention? Heartland Area Education Agency's evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the National Research Center of Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for educating of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42 (25), 65082-65085. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems., Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice (Vol. 18, pp. 137-146).

Vygotsky, L. (1962/1996). Thought and language (Vol. (Rev. Ed.)). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

1/23/2018

In education, there seems to be an acronym for everything. Response to intervention (RTI) and Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) are two of the most commonly used acronyms, with mentions thrown into practically every department meeting, professional development seminar, and district conference. Though often discussed together, the two are not the same.

It is important to understand the differences between RTI and MTSS in order to properly utilize both in creating successful interventions and paths to success.  

What is RTI?

RTI is a structured, multi-tiered approach to help identify and support struggling students. It focuses on providing high-quality instruction and interventions, typically at three different levels (i.e. tiers). All students must receive high-quality classroom instruction and screening within Tier 1, and approximately 80 percent of students are expected to reach targeted goals under Tier 1 instruction. Students identified as struggling in this early stage are then provided with targeted interventions that increase in intensity in Tier 2 and Tier 3. Typically, around 15 percent receive small-group and supplemental instruction in Tier 2, while the remaining 5 percent require more intensive and individualized interventions in Tier 3.
 

There are four main components of RTI:

• Multi-tiered system

• Universal screening to identify students

• Frequent progress-monitoring of student performance

• Data-driven decision-making to guide the selection of evidence-based interventions

RTI’s primary purpose is to support students academically, using a combination of approaches for interventions.

What is MTSS?

MTSS is a school model that uses data-driven problem-solving and incorporates system-level change to address both the academic and non-academic needs of all students. This model provides a comprehensive framework for how and when to administer support, and allows for the tools and time to implement such strategies. MTSS generally uses a four-step problem-solving process for making team-based decisions.
 

MTSS is similar to RTI in the following ways:

• Features a continuum of multiple supports for students based on their level of documented need

• Delivers interventions and services in a multi-tiered support structure, which utilizes increasingly intensive interventions and supports in Tier 2 and Tier 3

• Emphasizes high-quality instruction at all levels

While RTI and MTSS have many similarities—for instance, both models require frequent progress-monitoring and data-driven instruction—there are some key differences that should be noted to explain the difference between these two models.

Major differences between RTI and MTSS

Whereas RTI is a model for identifying and addressing the specific academic needs of struggling students, MTSS has a much broader scope. MTSS addresses academic as well as social and emotional areas (non-academic), including behavior and other topics such as attendance. It also incorporates school culture, teacher professional development, and family and community engagement.

MTSS provides for both academic and behavioral considerations, recognizing the integration of the two for student success in school. It can be thought of as an umbrella that covers many different approaches and interventions, including:

• Curriculum design

• Positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS)

• Teacher learning and collaboration

• Collaboration between school and family in problem-solving

Both RTI and MTSS are a change from previous approaches that require the intentional redesign of programs and supports to address needs. Particularly within the broad scope of MTSS, this may include school-wide and district-wide (systematic) changes as needed, making leadership, widespread communication, and cooperative effort essential to its success.  

The future of MTSS

As MTSS becomes the new standard for pursuing educational excellence, state educational offices and districts are in the process of developing their own methods for implementing MTSS strategies. By using a four-step problem-solving process within the MTSS framework, all members of an educational team—from administration to teachers and support staff—will be seeking to not only deliver high-quality individualized instruction, but to use data-driven decision-making to select and implement research-based interventions for struggling students. MTSS gives educators a means to address the academic and non-academic needs of students, both of which are critical components for student growth and achievement.