Decisions regarding the interventions’ duration and intensity are founded on the individual responses of the students being evaluated. Also, their designation for utilization in special and general education categories develops excellently integrated systems reliant on the outcomes of children. This paper explores the impact of Response to Intervention on schedules and direct instruction receivership in K-8 level schools in Tennessee.
Response to Intervention processes use a universally accepted model that is widely practiced and scientifically researched that is divided into three tiers incorporating behavioral and/or academic intercessions. The first tier involves qualified personnel giving similar instructions to the students for screening to identify students with behavioral and academic needs as to their respective learning rates and performance levels. The second tier involves evaluating the individual progress of the participating students at increased intensity of the instructions provided. The third tier entails giving exhaustive intercessions targeting the identified skill deficits to ascertain whether each student satisfies the standards set to refer them for special education or general education. Besides, schools can use other implementation approaches such as functional assessment, problem-solving or standard protocol (Buffun, Mattos and Weber, 2009).
The use of instructional processes in response to intervention is the pillar of the approach. Although assessment components are essential to the program’s implementation, it is the instructions appearing as a function of the assessments’ outcome that propels the desired changes in students found to have problems with academic performance; students at a danger of not scoring beyond the established standards. The tiered instructions describe a model in which instructions are presented to each student in