The four tiers of the RTII model are (a) effective scientific research-based instructional practice in general education; (b) scientific research-based small group intervention and instruction in the general education classroom; (c) intensive individualised instruction in the general education; and (d) evaluation and qualification for special services (Benjamin 2011: 2). Whitten et al. (2009: 11) state that the model provides a problem-solving process for making decisions about instructions and interventions, through all the four tiers (Illinois Aspire 2009: 2 & Dawson 2013: 18).
125
These four tiers are presented and analysed in the following paragraphs.
(1) Tier 1
The instruction in the general education classroom targets 80-90 percent of learners. The instruction and assessments serve as universal screening as all learners are given the same assessment and held to the same behavioural expectations during the same time (Dawson 2013: 18). McIntosh et al. (2011: 22-23) state that school-wide screening and universal screening are often conducted at the beginning, middle and end of the school year to prevent serious academic and behavioural problems from emerging. Data are collected to determine the effectiveness of the universal system of behavioural support. If a significant number of learners are not responding to the school-wide discipline plan, which is the behaviour benchmark, and to the state-mandated performance standards as per the standard core curriculum, then they are placed on Tier 2 intervention (Hawken et
al. 2008: 220). Whitten et al. (2009: 14:15) postulate that Tier 1 instruction should
include research-based curricular assessment of learner learning strengths, interests and academic performance, differentiated instruction, flexible grouping, and on-going professional development of general education educators. In fact, the comparison provides an academic or behavioural baseline for the class.
Methods that can help to identify which learners are not responding to Tier 1 behavioural interventions are the number of Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) the learner received within a given time-frame; direct observation; school attendance; tardies; and poor academic performance (Walker & Shinn 2002: 1-26). Horner et al. (2005: 376) and McIntosh, Chard, Boland and Horner (2006: 149) postulate that learners who receive 0 to 1 Office Discipline Referrals per year do not need behavioural support beyond universal school-wide discipline; learners with 2 to 5 Office Discipline Referrals are recommended for Tier 2 intervention whereas learners with 6 or more Office Discipline Referrals per year might require Tier 3.
126 (2) Tier 2
Tier 2 instruction and intervention addresses learning and behaviour challenges that emerge during the universal screening (Whitten et al. 2009: 15) and 15 to 20 per cent of the class receive extra or supplemental interventions (Torgesen 2000: 57). They represent those learners who scored below the 20th percentile on assessments in Tier 1 (Dawson 2013: 19). They need more comprehensive, frequent and intense instructions and interventions in a small group. More instructional minutes are allocated in the content area in which the learners have difficulties. The interventions are delivered following a standardised protocol intervention. According to Hawken et al. (2008: 214:215), a standardised protocol intervention is defined as an evidence-based intervention that is delivered systematically to a group of learners by using scripts.
Within the small group setting, learners’ skill deficits are targeted in addition to the general instruction received daily. Tier 2 interventions may include diagnostic evaluation of learners’ academic strengths and needs, collaborative problem-solving by the RTII team, parental intervention and small group instructions (Whitten et al. 2009: 15-17). Diamond (2006: 6) adds that the supplemental behavioural intervention is social skill training, anger control training, and counselling groups. The following interventions may be used: check-in, check-out intervention, and check, connect and expect (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, Lathrop 2007: 298-301). The methods that can be used to determine learners who need Tier 2 intervention and who are progressing daily are direct observation of problem behaviour and Daily Progress Reports (DPRs). In a Daily Progress Report, the school wide behaviour expectations are listed and each learner’s problem behaviour may be further defined under the “list behaviour” paragraph. Learners are given a rating on predetermined behavioural goals during the school day. At the end of the day, the percentage of points is measured and the progress of the learners over time is monitored and measured to determine whether the learner is meeting the targeted goal (Fairbanks et al. 2007: 301). However, the guideline is not empirically validated (Hawken et al. 2008: 218). Vermont Department of Education (2013: 52) states that Tier 2 interventions do not supplement Tier 1 instructions and interventions but are provided
127
over and above what the learner receives at the first tier. The behavioural interventions are designed to match the needs of the learners and are provided by professionally trained and knowledgeable school professionals. Diamond (2006: 6) stipulates that Tier 2 interventions are continued when the collected data demonstrate that the behaviour of the target learner is moving closer to the benchmark or peer group expectations. They are discontinued when the data demonstrate that the target learner’s behaviour is within peer expectations and is maintained by the universal interventions. According to Hale (2008: 4), if the learner is a non-responder to Tier 2, and he/she shows little progress, then he/she is recommended for more intensive interventions and instructions of Tier 3.
(3) Tier 3
In the RTII model used in Georgia State Tier 3 is called the school’s student support team (SST) (Dawson 2013: 20). The SST uses the data collected on learners’ behavioural and academic needs for an in-depth problem-solving analysis and reviews progress monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of intervention and to plan individualised support for the learners. Graphs and charts are drawn to analyse the trend in progress monitoring. They will help determine if there has been behaviour change (Wanzek & Vaughn 2008: 132). Dawson (2013: 20) asserts that the results from the data will either support that interventions are (i) successful, (ii) need to be more intense; or (iii) need to refer the learner for special education. If the learner has not made sufficient progress given the high quality instruction (Tier 1), the supplemental small group or individual instruction (Tier 2), then he/she is eligible to receive specialised instruction and behavioural interventions (Tier 4) subject to his/her evaluation by the school psychologist (Vermont Department of Education 2013: 52; Dawson 2013: 20; Hale 2008: 4).
(4) Tier 4
Learners at Tier 4 are identified as having a behavioural or learning disability. According to Diamond (2006: 6), Tier 4 interventions are developed with focus on the individual
128
learner who requires individually developed interventions which are delivered with a frequency and intensity that involve resources and personnel in addition to the general education educator. In other words, individualised comprehensive instructional and behavioural supports are added to the layers of intervention in Tiers 1, 2 and 3. Fox et al. (2010: 10) argue that Tier 4 interventions involve the implementation of an assessment- based behaviour support plan to address the environmental triggers of challenging behaviour, provide instruction of communication and social skills that serve as replacement to challenging behaviour, and to ensure that new skills are reinforced and problem behaviour is not being maintained by events or interactions with others. These interventions are provided within the general education classroom and/or within a separate setting or in both. Dawson (2013: 21) and Fairbanks et al. (2007: 294) maintain that an individualised education program (IEP) or a behaviour support program (BSP) based on functional assessments is designed by the SST which includes special education educators, general education educators, school psychologists and counsellors. The IEP or BSP specifies what interventions are needed and which setting is appropriate at Tier 4 (Hawken et al. 2008: 220). However, Hale (2008: 4) argues that Tier 4 special education services are not dramatically different from Tiers 1, 2 and 3 interventions and that IEP and BSP are based on peer-reviewed research as intensive progress monitoring continues (Hale 2008: 4). In the same vein, Dawson (2013: 21) asserts that the RTII model uses increasingly intensive interventions at each Tier before referring a learner to special education. This pertains to the RTII goal to match the intensity of the behaviour intervention with the behaviour problem (Gresham 2005: 338).
In the response to intervention and instruction (RTII) model, the principal’s role is to facilitate the close collaboration between the general education educators and the special education educators towards the most efficient instructional strategies and behavioural interventions of learners. For the principal to achieve this, there should be adequate resources for counselling and mental health support to learners who manifest a lack of discipline at the school (Losen, Hewitt & Toldson 2014: 10). The principal has to coordinate all the various tiers to ensure that all learners needing interventions are catered for. So, he/she has to use collaborative leadership. Here also, he/she has to adopt
129
distributed leadership and set up a community of learners for all stakeholders so that team work and team building capacity are developed at the school level. He/she must also encourage parental involvement in the RTII process as well as the continuous professional development for all school members, but most importantly for the special education educators who are not initially trained for the general education curriculum. In the RTII model, the principal has also to manage the school by wandering around (MBWA) so as to ensure the effective implementation of treatment fidelity of behavioural interventions and successful curriculum strategies in the classroom as forms of early prevention.
From the above discussions, it is clear at the various models of discipline preventions and interventions that learner discipline is a complex process that needs to be tackled and restored by adopting discipline strategies that take into consideration the learner- environment mismatches rather than the child-within deficits. It is found that in the positive approach to discipline reactive strategies are not discussed, but emphasis is placed mostly on the relationships of the learner to his peers, the educator as well as the school as a whole. All these models have been selected by the researcher since they advocate positive discipline: they lay emphasis on methods that do not damage, but rather build the learner’s self-image; make the learners feel important and appreciated; and encourages him/her to participate and cooperate in his/her own process of self- development (Oosthuizen 2010: 20).
3.3 A SUMMARY OF THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN MAINTAINING