Worked example · Tier 8 · Second grade
What a Tier 8 (residential placement) student looks like
Daniela is a second grader whose ARD committee determined a residential placement as her least restrictive environment. That placement sets her at Tier 8 by override — but the example rates every factor and domain anyway, because the override fixes the tier without exempting the rest of the work.
The student
Daniela is a second grader with an intellectual disability and complex health needs whose ARD committee has determined that a residential placement is the least restrictive environment in which she can receive a free appropriate public education. Her IEP documents intensive specialized instruction five days a week, occupational and physical therapy, a dedicated 1:1 paraprofessional, and substantial personal-care and health supports. Her needs are extensive and her team has made a significant, individualized placement decision in her interest — and she deserves to be rated with the same care as every other student, not treated as a formality because her tier is easy to find.
What jumps out first
Check for an override first, and Daniela has one: an ARD-determined residential placement, which forces Tier 8. How scores become a tier → That settles the tier immediately. But the override does not end the work — the rubric is explicit that you still rate every factor and domain even when an override applies, because those ratings drive master scheduling, staffing, and any future reintegration planning. So the tier is known; the rating still gets done in full, and done well.
When an ARD committee places a student in a residential setting, the tier is automatically Tier 8, regardless of how the factors score. The rule fixes the tier — it doesn't exempt the student from a full, dignified rating of every factor and domain.
The domains that matter
Rating her live domains by highest-wins, as you would for any student. Three carry a direct service.
Curriculum & Instruction → Significant. Intensive daily specialized instruction structures her program.
| Factor | What the IEP requires | Level |
|---|---|---|
| A — type/frequency | Intensive specialized instruction five days a week | Significant (3) |
| B — credentials | Delivered by special education staff | Moderate (2) |
| C — ratio | Small, highly individualized instructional ratio | Significant (3) |
| D — equipment | No specialized instructional equipment | None (0) |
Independent Functioning → Significant. Daily-living and self-management supports run across the day, with equipment needs.
| Factor | What the IEP requires | Level |
|---|---|---|
| A — type/frequency | Daily-living and self-management support throughout the day | Significant (3) |
| B — credentials | OT and PT involvement in functional supports | Significant (3) |
| C — ratio | Supported within the small instructional setting | Moderate (2) |
| D — equipment | Adaptive equipment for daily-living tasks | Significant (3) |
Personal Care / Health → Significant. Every factor here rates Significant, consistent with the complex-health documentation — nursing, health-plan, and personal-care supports integrated through the day.
| Factor | What the IEP requires | Level |
|---|---|---|
| A — type/frequency | Personal-care and health supports integrated through the day | Significant (3) |
| B — credentials | Nursing and health-plan oversight | Significant (3) |
| C — ratio | Dedicated 1:1 paraprofessional support | Significant (3) |
| D — equipment | Health and personal-care equipment | Significant (3) |
The empty domains
Behavior and Communication have no direct service documented — one line each. Rating them as empty is part of doing the full rating even though the tier is already set.
The tier
Tier 8, by the residential-placement override. The override forces Tier 8 regardless of the factor scores. This is rail-anchored in the cleanest possible way — it rests on the placement decision, a documented fact, so there's no sum to compute and no judgment-middle to name. Worth stating plainly: the simplicity of finding Tier 8 says nothing about the complexity of the student. Daniela's factor map is rich, and it gets filled in completely.
Service groups
The separate read, and it still applies. Daniela has related services — OT (30 min/wk) and PT (30 min/wk) — summing to 360 minutes per six-week period, placing her in Service Group 2. She also has a dedicated 1:1 paraprofessional, which the Groups 4–5 axis measures as a share of her instructional day, so she additionally carries a Group 4/5 designation. The override fixes the tier; it doesn't exempt her from the service-group read.
What this example shows
The top tier is set by a placement override, not by the ladder — but the override is a starting point for the rating, not a reason to skip it. Every factor and domain still gets rated, because those ratings do real work beyond the tier. A student whose tier is easy to determine is still a student whose program deserves a full and careful read.
Related examples
- The top of the scored ladder, no override — Juan Gonzalez, Tier 7 by the all-five-significant gate, reached by rating rather than by placement.
- The other override, at the floor — Min Flores, Tier 1 by the speech-only override. The two ends of the override story.
- Overrides, explained — the rule this example runs on.