Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NRCLD is a joint project of researchers at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas. This document was produced under
U.S. Department of Education Grant No. H324U010004. Renee Bradley served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do
not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department
of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.
RTI Manual
population. Within this smaller segment, some • Parent involvement. Parent involvement is con-
individuals, roughly 5 percent of the total popu- sistent, organized, and meaningful two-way
lation, are going to need very specialized inter- communication between school staff and par-
ventions. This highest level is called the tertiary ents with regard to student progress and related
level of intervention and by design is the most school activities. This communication allows
intense and most costly level of intervention. In parents to play an important role in their child’s
the same way we understand that the general education.
population benefits from receiving an optimal
• Fidelity of implementation. Fidelity of imple-
health intervention, we can imagine that all
mentation is the delivery of content and in-
students would benefit from closely matching
structional strategies in the way in which they
instructional and curricular approaches to their
were intended to be delivered. The delivery of
current level of functioning and need. That is
instruction must be accurate and consistent. Al-
the role of tiered service delivery.
though interventions are aimed at students, fi-
• Data-based decision making. Accurate imple- delity measures are focused on the individuals
mentation requires a shared understanding of who provide the instruction.
options (e.g., choices of interventions) and the This section of the RTI Manual profiles informa-
basis on which those intervention decisions are tion from some of the schools that engage in com-
made. By having a public, objective, and norma- mendable RTI practices. Part One features schools
tive framework of “at risk,” “responsiveness,” that have implemented one or more of the RTI com-
and “unresponsiveness,” school staff will have ponents. Part Two describes longitudinal data from
a basis for guiding their decisions. For example, individual students who have received services un-
when school staff and parents understand the der an RTI delivery model. Part Three describes re-
expected oral reading fluency growth rates, de- search studies that have employed RTI models.
cisions about a student’s responsiveness can be
judged more accurately.
Part One
School Examples
School-Wide Screening
Jefferson Elementary School
Pella, Iowa
(Spring 2006)
Screening data and reference points Literacy day sessions and data
When analyzing students’ screening data, the The Literacy Team, which includes general and
school uses reference points, not specific cut scores. special education teachers, Reading Plus teachers,
The reference points are used to indicate whether Area Educational Agency staff, the curriculum di-
a student is performing below expectations and to rector, and the principal, meets three times a year for
guide school staff members as they determine ap- Literacy Day sessions. These sessions occur just af-
propriate interventions for students. The reference ter district-wide student screenings and allow team
points, or scores, match up with proficiency scores members to review the district-wide screening data
of standardized tests. as well as data from the other school-wide screen-
No single score stands alone in determining in- ing measures. Data are then used to make necessary
terventions for students, but rather data from mul- changes to current student interventions and to iden-
tiple sources (benchmark scores, fluency screenings, tify students who require more individualized and
DIBELS, ITBS, Gates-McGinitie) are used to deter- more intensive interventions.
5.4 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
For example, a Literacy Day Data sheet for a minister fluency and accuracy screenings to reduce
fifth-grade class would include the names of the stu- the time teachers spend on assessments. They also
dents in the left-hand column and scores earned by use associates and Central College students to help
each of those students on September fluency and ac- in various ways.
curacy measures and the Gates-McGinitie compre- Appropriate screening materials. School staff
hension and vocabulary tests. A companion sheet, members also appreciate the challenge of determin-
Literacy Day Notes, would also be used during ing appropriate screening materials. They agree that
meeting discussions. Again, student names would some choices (e.g., ITBS) are easy; more difficult
be in the left-hand column with adjacent columns to find are screening assessments to match the skills
for noting the student’s areas of need, current inter- for which they want to screen. Another challenge is
ventions, and comments. As discussion progresses to acquire and use multiple sources of data to help
during the sessions, changes are made based on stu- validate skill deficits.
dent data, students with skill deficits are considered Data-based decision making. Using the data to
for services, and students with extension needs are make appropriate decisions regarding interventions
considered for gifted and talented placement. has also been a challenge for Jefferson Elementary
staff. After being collected, data must be stored and
RTI screening challenges sorted so they can be easily analyzed. While analyz-
Time. Time is a big issue when conducting ing the data, decisions must be made about how to
school-wide screenings. Jefferson Elementary staff provide interventions to students when no current
members have trained a group of volunteers to ad- program matches their needs.
Progress Monitoring
Cornell Elementary School
Des Moines, Iowa
(Spring 2006)
staff will further analyze the performance of stu- • continuing to receive core plus supplemental in-
dents who score below the benchmark performance, struction
with the goal of matching instruction to student For students who have four consecutive reading
need. These students may remain in the core cur- probe data points below the established goal line,
riculum with changes to instruction/practice or may who are scoring below the benchmark performance,
be placed in core plus supplemental support. or whose slope of performance falls below the goal
line (trend line), three options are considered:
Planning supplemental support • further analysis or assessment
Options considered when planning supplemen- • continuing in core plus supplemental support
tal support and matching students’ needs with the with changes
appropriate type and intensity of resources and in- • core plus supplemental instruction plus inter-
struction include the following: vention(s)
• more instructional or practice time
• smaller instructional groups Planning supplemental support
• more precisely targeted instruction at the right Options considered when planning instructional
level support and interventions for struggling students in-
• more explicit explanations clude the following:
• more systematic instructional sequences • more instructional time
• more extensive opportunities for guided prac- • smaller instructional groups
tice • more precisely targeted instruction at the right
• more opportunities for corrective feedback level
• more explicit explanations
Progress monitoring for core plus • more systematic instructional sequences
supplemental instruction • more extensive opportunities for guided prac-
For students who receive supplemental instruc- tice
tion, progress is monitored often twice each week • more opportunities for corrective feedback.
rather than only once as with the core curriculum.
School staff use DIBELS measures to assess kinder- Progress monitoring challenges
gartners’ initial sound fluency in the fall and their Follow-up coaching and support. For Cornell
phoneme segmentation fluency in the winter. Staff Elementary School, one of the greatest challenges
members assess first-graders’ nonsense word fluen- continues to be ensuring the fidelity of follow-up
cy in the fall and oral reading fluency in the spring. coaching and support for supplemental and inter-
For second-graders, oral reading fluency is assessed; vention-level instruction in vocabulary and compre-
for third-graders both oral reading fluency and retell hension.
fluency are assessed. Fidelity. An additional challenge for this school
staff is ensuring continued fidelity of implementa-
Core plus supplemental outcomes: next steps tion of supplemental and intervention-level instruc-
For students whose slope of performance is tion over time.
on the goal line or who are scoring at or above the Time. Finding additional instruction and prac-
benchmark performance level, two options are con- tice time (core plus supplemental plus intervention)
sidered: without sacrificing other core academic subjects re-
• a return to core instruction with progress moni- mains a challenge.
toring occurring weekly
Fifteen students are served in special education, and Total enrollment=411, K-5
one student is an English language learner (ELL).
Dalton Gardens Elementary’s responsiveness-
to-intervention model uses the following structure: • placing students who need additional assistance
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education. in a staff-supported study hall
Progress monitoring challenges on both the IRI and ISAT, even after interventions, it
Dalton Gardens Elementary School staff con- is likely that the student will be given Tier 2 instruc-
tinue to be challenged by: tion, with the hope of improvement on state assess-
• Who does the progress monitoring? ments and class work.
• When will it get done in an already busy day? What decision rules are used for progress mon-
• Is DIBELS being used with fidelity? itoring? If a student has three data points that are
• Are staff members all doing progress monitor- above the aim line, Dalton staff either continue with
ing the same way? (Staff members have been the interventions or increase the student’s goal. If
trained at different times and by different peo- a student has three data points below the aim line,
ple.) Dalton staff change the intervention by changing the
targeted skill or by increasing the amount of time
Additional information about specific spent with the intervention(s). If a student continues
decision rules to have data points below the aim line (again, the
Specific decision rules. Dalton Gardens Elemen- three data points rule is used), school staff will work
tary School uses specific cut scores that are provided with the student in a smaller group (two to three stu-
by the state for the Idaho Standards Achievement dents) or will work with the student one-on-one.
Tests (ISAT) and the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI). The RTI process at Dalton Gardens Elementary
Decisions about next steps are made at the individ- School is child-centered. School staff members look
ual level. Staff members look at the students indi- at the students individually and plan for them indi-
vidually; a team meets every nine weeks to discuss vidually. They recognize that all children are differ-
progress, look at graphs, and decide what the next ent and what might work for one may not work for
steps for an individual student should be. another. They try to do what is best for each child
What decision rules about a student’s scores on individually. If several students fit into a group,
the screening assessments lead to a student being then that is great for school staff, but the school will
placed in Tier 2 instruction? The state provides the provide interventions one-on-one, if needed. Dal-
IRI and ISAT cut scores to Dalton. During a team ton staff provide early intervention and put a great
meeting, the team discusses the student’s scores on amount of effort into the interventions with the goal
these state assessments and determines whether the of having students working at grade level, with the
scores match the student’s work in the classroom realization that some students need sustained inter-
and whether there are concerns about this student. If ventions and instruction in a different setting.
a student continues to score below basic proficiency
two weeks and through Professional Learning Com- tion Program and Wilson Reading; these are used
munities. District workshops cover the five compo- on an individual basis or in small groups of no more
nents of balanced reading. The Professional Learn- than five students. Instructional blocks of time are
ing Communities at Rosewood include the follow- two hours in length plus any additional time that is
ing: kindergarten–interactive writing; first grade– needed to implement instruction and interventions.
fluency; second grade–comprehension (author’s Assessments include those used in other tiers plus
purpose and comparison and contrast benchmarks); progress monitoring using AIMSweb Oral Read-
third grade–expository text strategies for references ing Fluency and Maze. Professional development
and research strand; fourth grade–reading compre- includes all the general education offerings plus
hension (main idea); and fifth grade–comprehension training on specific curricula and progress monitor-
targeting reference and research and main idea. ing. Also included in the professional development
activities are the following Professional Learning
Instruction at Tier 3 Communities: Behavior Management Techniques
Instruction in Tier 3 is focused on those students and Strategies to Enhance Academic Performance.
who do not respond to Tier 2 instruction, with the
goal of providing intensive, individualized or small- Decision rules for Tier 2 and Tier 3
group, research-based instruction and intervention A student should move from Tier 1 to Tier 2 if
to eliminate the discrepancies between student screening assessments indicate that the student is
performance and grade-level expectations. Staff not meeting benchmark(s), the student’s classroom
members involved in Tier 3 instruction include the grades are below average, or the classroom teacher
general education teacher, reading coach, student formally requests assistance. A student should leave
support specialist, elementary specialist, school Tier 2 and return to Tier 1 if she or he is meeting
psychologist, ESE teacher, and speech-language benchmarks and course work is on grade level. Tier
pathologist. Instruction takes place in the general 2 instruction generally lasts for nine weeks. Howev-
education classroom for two hours a day with er, a student may move to Tier 3 sooner if progress is
additional extra time as needed to address individual not being made. This unresponsiveness is indicated
student needs. Tier 3 instruction is usually done one- by a lack of progress toward intervention goals such
on-one; small-group instruction consists of groups as three consecutive data points below the aim line.
of five students or fewer. Instructional materials A student should move to Tier 3 if the student
include the Harcourt Trophies Intervention Program shows inadequate progress with Tier 2 interventions
with American Federation of Teacher’s Educational (three data points below the aim line) but should re-
Research & Dissemination “Five-Step Plan,” turn to Tier 2 from Tier 3 if the student has mastered
Earobics, Road to the Code, Great Leaps, and Quick the goals and can maintain the rate of progress with
Reads. Individual interventions are used to address Tier 2 support. A student should continue with Tier 3
specific areas of concern. School staff monitor instruction when progress predicts grade-level perfor-
progress weekly using DIBELS, AIMSweb Oral mance within a year and if inadequate progress indi-
Reading Fluency, or AIMSweb MAZE. cates a need to modify or redesign the intervention.
Professional development is extensive, as de-
scribed in Tiers 1 and 2, and also includes Student Decision rules for special education (Tier 4)
Support Team staff development on problem solv- Special education (Tier 4) should be considered
ing and progress monitoring. when the targeted goal is not met or the student’s
trend line is below the aim line after implementing
Instruction at Tier 4 (special education) two or more interventions. Special education (Tier
Tier 4 (special education) instruction provides 4) also should be considered when a positive re-
sustained intensive support through a targeted cur- sponse in Tier 3 requires an intensity of resources
riculum for eligible students who need it to progress not available in general education. State regulations
toward grade-level expectations. The general educa- continue to require ability-achievement discrepancy
tion teacher and the ESE teacher share responsibili- for eligibility. Response to intervention data are used
ties for instruction, which takes place in the general as evidence of educational need and for educational
education classroom and in the ESE classroom. In- programming.
structional materials include the Harcourt Interven-
What Rosewood is learning through its RTI Finding manpower and resources. Rosewood
implementation needs to think “outside the box” to find the neces-
Need to shift from “eligibility” to “solving the sary manpower and resources to carry out interven-
problem.” Rosewood staff members have learned tions and progress monitoring.
that they need to continue the shift from making the Quest for accommodations for standardized
child eligible to solving the child’s learning problem. testing vs. the model. Rosewood believes that the
They believe that this may be best accomplished one desire to obtain accommodations for standardized
teacher at a time. testing works against this model.
Importance of instructor coaching. They have
also learned that coaching is the key to faithful im- Additional information about specific
plementation of interventions and to teachers feel- decision rules
ing supported. The processes used at Rosewood Elementary are
the result of years of researching, learning, search-
Tiered service delivery challenges ing, and experimenting, and staff still do not think
Development of a bank of evidence-based ac- that they have all the answers. RTI is a learning pro-
tivities. Rosewood needs to develop a “bank” of cess, and staff members believe they are doing a bet-
evidence-based activities to ensure quality interven- ter job of helping students, but they know they still
tions. have a great deal to learn.
instruction for students identified as “strategic,” a day, five days a week, in the general education class-
designation based on DIBELS criteria and synony- room or in the reading room. Assessments used to
mous with the DIBELS “Some Risk” cut score, if measure Tier 3 progress are the same as those used
that score is an intended benchmark at the time the during core instruction, with additional assessments
test is given. The curriculum and instruction in Tier (such as weekly probes, error analysis, and running
2 are based on an analysis of student need. Materials records) used as needed. Students in Tier 3 may
and programs used for Tier 2 instruction include RE- be assessed more frequently than students in Tier
WARDS, Read Naturally, Peer-Assisted Learning 2. Staff members who work with students in Tier
Strategies (PALS), Corrective Reading, Six-Minute 3 include classroom teachers, Title I teachers, the
Solution, Reading Mastery, and Quick Reads. reading specialist, associates, special teachers, and
Tier 2 instruction is provided in addition to the special education teachers.
core reading instruction and occurs for 45 to 60 min- Professional development for Tier 3 instruction
utes each day, three to five days per week, in the focuses on Open Court, provided by the company
general education classroom or the reading room. consultant; Read Well; and LETRS.
The assessments used to measure Tier 2 progress
are the same as those used during core instruction, Decision rules about movement to and from
with additional assessments used as needed (weekly tiers 2 and 3
probes, error analysis, and running records, for ex- School staff members base the decision to move
ample). The staff members who work with students a student to Tier 2 instruction based on weekly prog-
in Tier 2 include classroom teachers, Title I teachers, ress monitoring, individual goals, and research-de-
the reading specialist, associates (personnel hired termined expected growth rates. If it is determined
to assist teachers in helping students), and special that a student cannot be successful in the core gen-
teachers (art, music, physical education). Northstar eral education classroom, he or she may be moved
Elementary has three building associates and one to Tier 2. Those students who are able to be success-
Title I associate. ful in the core general education classroom remain
Professional development for Tier 2 instruction or return there.
focuses on Open Court, provided by the company Similarly, school staff members base the de-
consultant; Read Well; and Language Essentials for cision to move a student to Tier 3 instruction on
Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). weekly progress monitoring, individual goals, and
research-determined expected growth rates. If it is
Tier 3: instruction determined that a student cannot be successful in
Reading instruction in Tier 3 consists of supple- Tier 2, he or she may be moved to Tier 3.
mental instruction for students identified as “inten- Groups are very fluid and flexible; students of-
sive,” a designation based on DIBELS criteria and ten move among tiers throughout the year. Students
synonymous with the DIBELS “At Risk” cut score, are continually monitored regardless of tier and are
if that score is an intended benchmark at the time moved based on their needs.
the test is given. The curriculum and instruction in
Tier 3 are based on an analysis of student need. Tier Special education decisions
3 instruction differs from Tier 2 in that the group Students who are resistive to intervention sup-
size may be smaller, more time is spent on instruc- port are considered for special education. These
tion, and the instruction is more intensive. Programs students may demonstrate slower rates of progress
include REWARDS, Read Naturally, PALS, Correc- and significant discrepancy from average peers and
tive Reading, Six-Minute Solution, Reading Mas- may have needs beyond what general education can
tery, and Quick Reads. support without additional resources. Northstar El-
Tier 3 instruction is provided in addition to core ementary identifies students for special education
reading instruction and occurs for 60 minutes each based on need rather than on disability.
DIBELS, Oregon State Assessments, and data in- Individualize Instruction Rule. When a student
volving attendance, behavior, and counseling refer- fails to progress after two consecutive small-group
rals. interventions, individual instruction begins.
About 20 percent of the students qualify for Refer for Special Education Evaluation Rule.
secondary prevention, which involves specialized When a student fails to progress after two consecu-
group systems for at-risk students. These students tive individually-designed interventions, the student
receive small-group interventions. About 5 percent is referred for special education evaluation.
of students qualify for tertiary prevention, which is
specialized individualized systems that are in place Progress monitoring and instructional
for students at high risk. Students in this group re- decision making
ceive further individualized interventions. Decisions about future instruction are based on
progress monitoring results:
Example structure • If the group intervention has been successful,
The EBIS Team meets weekly. Team members the student may no longer need small-group in-
include the school principal, counselor, literacy spe- struction.
cialist, special education teacher, ELL specialists, • If the intervention appears to be working for the
and classroom teacher representatives from each student, the intervention should be continued as
grade level. The team monitors all students who re- is.
ceive small-group and individual interventions. The • If the group intervention is not working for the
team also oversees RTI fidelity and makes referrals student, the intervention should be revised or re-
to special education. fined.
The EBS (Effective Behavior Support) Team • If the group intervention is highly unlikely to be
meets twice monthly to plan and implement school- successful for the student, a more individualized
wide supports. approach is needed.
Grade-level teams meet monthly. At each meet- An example: A young student named Daisy is
ing, team members use data to evaluate the core pro- participating in the general curriculum but is not do-
gram, plan initial interventions for the “20 percent ing well. The EBIS Team reviews Daisy’s screen-
group,” and monitor student progress. Grade-level ing data; from the data review, the team decides to
teams also report to the EBIS Team. place Daisy in a group intervention. Daisy does not
Content-area teams meet every month to recom- improve, and the EBIS Team designs an individual
mend curriculum and instructional improvements intervention for Daisy. Had Daisy improved with
across all content areas. the group intervention, she would have resumed the
Individual Student Case Management imple- general program.
ments intensive interventions and monitors student Because Daisy continues to show no improve-
progress within the RTI process. ment with the first individual intervention, the EBIS
Team designs a second individual intervention for
Decision rules her. Had Daisy shown good improvement with the
Eighty Percent Decision Rule. If less than 80 first individual intervention, the team would deter-
percent of the Tualatin students are meeting bench- mine whether (1) other factors are suspected as the
marks, Tualatin staff review the core program(s). cause for her poor response to general and group in-
Twenty Percent Decision Rule. Students below struction or (2) the individual intervention needed
the 20th percentile in academic skills or with chron- to be given at such an intense level that a learning
ic behavior needs (more than five absences or more disability might be suspected. In the latter case, a
than three counseling or discipline referrals in a 30- special education referral is initiated.
day period) are placed in small-group instruction. Daisy still does not show improvement when
Change Small Group or Individual Intervention she is given instruction with a second individual in-
Rule. When progress data are below the aim line tervention. At this point, a special education referral
on three consecutive days, or when six data points is initiated.
produce a flat or decreasing trend line, school staff
change the intervention.
Parent Involvement
Dalton Gardens Elementary School
Dalton Gardens, Idaho
(Spring 2006)
can students. Fifteen students are served in special Total enrollment=411, K-5
education, and one student is an English language
learner (ELL).
Dalton Gardens Elementary’s responsiveness- terms or acronyms used that the parents may not un-
to-intervention model uses the following structure: derstand.
Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and special education.
Ensuring that parents are involved in all
Ensuring that parents feel welcome and phases of the rti process and receive active
comfortable in the school setting support for participation at school and at
Parents of students with an intervention plan (I- home
plan) are involved from the initial I-plan meeting. School staff members are aware that parents of-
Before this meeting, the classroom teacher makes ten have unique insights about their child’s strengths
the initial contact with the parents. The contact may and weaknesses and are frequently eager to help
be by phone or at a parent-teacher conference. Just with interventions at home. When parents offer to
before the meeting, the classroom teacher meets do interventions at home with their child, the par-
the parents by the school office, assists them with ents are noted on the I-plan as interventionists. Dal-
checking in, and gives them a brief overview of how ton Gardens has had parents come to the school to
the meeting is expected to go and who will attend. volunteer so they could observe the interventions in
The Dalton Gardens Responsiveness to Intervention place and help with other students’ interventions.
(RTI) Team attends these meetings. Members of Dalton Gardens staff also give parents ideas and
the RTI Team include the principal, counselor, psy- materials that they can use at home – for example,
chologist, speech-language pathologist (if needed), flash cards, reading passages with which their child
general education representative (Dalton Gardens can practice fluency, grammar worksheets, etc. If a
has one primary representative and one intermediate parent suggests a certain intervention, Dalton Gar-
representative), special education teacher, and refer- dens staff members are open to considering the in-
ring teacher. tervention if it is something that can be provided by
At the beginning of the meeting, formal intro- the staff. When parents have a suggestion, it is often
ductions are conducted by the meeting facilitator, something they would like to do at home.
usually the principal. The classroom teacher then Parents are invited to all meetings about their
presents information about the student to the par- child, although Dalton Gardens staff members do
ents and to the team members. During the meeting, meet without parents if they are unwilling to attend.
team members try to be “jargon-busters” if there are
5.16 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Parental notification meeting to discuss the problem and the next step.
Included in a student’s I-plan is a description of The child’s classroom teacher invites parents to all
the child’s problem, clear and unambiguous docu- meetings.
mentation about the child’s difficulties, a written Dalton Gardens Elementary distributes a survey
description of the specific intervention(s), clearly to families each March to solicit feedback from par-
stated intervention goal(s), and a long-range time- ents about all the school programs, including RTI.
line for the plan and its implementation. (Student
timelines can vary widely.) Every nine weeks, Dal- Progress data sent frequently to parents
ton Gardens RTI Team members meet to discuss Progress monitoring data are usually sent home
students with I-plans and to decide to discontinue weekly, if parents request it. Many parents trust
the I-plan (because goals have been met), continue that school staff will keep them informed if there
current interventions, change the interventions, or is a problem. Many students who are showing good
refer the student to special education. Parents are progress on their graphs ask to take a copy home to
invited to attend these meetings. show their families.
Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the Written materials to inform parents of
child’s plan, implementation, and timeline the right to ask for a special education
Dalton Gardens staff members have found that, evaluation at any time
because the parents are so impressed with the RTI Parents are not given any written information
and I-plan process and because of the willingness of formally, but during past meetings, parents have
the team to do whatever it takes to help their child, asked for testing. In these cases, the special educa-
parents do not have many complaints and it is easy tion teacher steps in with the appropriate paperwork
to reach a mutual agreement. If parents do have con- for parents to read and sign. If a parent asks for test-
cerns, the school staff address them immediately ing during a meeting when the special education
and try to work with parents to make satisfactory teacher is not present and the paperwork is not avail-
changes. able, a meeting will be scheduled for a later time to
handle the paperwork necessary for proceeding with
Frequent and consistent parent-staff the testing.
communication
Dalton Gardens staff inform parents about RTI Practices by school staff to ensure that
through presentations at Parent-Teacher Association parents view the implementation of due
meetings and through the school newsletter. At PTA process procedures and protections as timely,
meetings, school staff give a brief overview of RTI adequate, and fair
that includes basic information about RTI and the The special education teacher is very conscien-
RTI process. The principal sends information about tious about giving parents all the paperwork and ma-
RTI to parents several times a year. terials at the appropriate time. All staff members are
Follow-up meetings focused on student prog- willing to stop a meeting and reconvene at another
ress occur every nine weeks. If a problem comes up time to take the appropriate steps for a student.
between meeting times, staff will call an emergency
meeting, writes the plan. (Again, this is not always ment a teacher is concerned and begins trying Level
shared with parents but can be shared.) All decisions 1 classroom interventions. This communication
for placement in remedial interventions are made lasts throughout the process and, with some parents,
with parental input and consent. might even evolve into daily contact. At the SAT
meeting, the team usually sets a follow-up time to
Frequent and consistent parent-staff meet and discuss the specific data gathered during
communication the intervention.
Jefferson Elementary asks teachers to commu- Jefferson Elementary staff members also en-
nicate with parents whenever they have concerns courage parents to contact the school if they have
about a child so that contact takes place not only concerns. Both parents and teachers can initiate an
at parent-teacher conferences but also from the mo- SAT meeting. Parents are invited to be a part of the
SAT meetings, during which many of the interven- Written materials to inform parents of
tions are planned. the right to ask for a special education
evaluation at any time
Progress data sent frequently to parents The Area Education Agency (AEA) has a par-
Progress data are routinely sent to the parents at ent information booklet that is shared with parents
report-card times. In addition, school staff share in- when Jefferson Elementary initiates conversation
tervention data with the parents at the SAT meeting about special education and evaluation. This infor-
or, if requested or needed, progress data are shared mation is accessible to any parent, but the school
with parents during the intervention. (Some parents does not give it to all parents.
request more information than others.)
Practices by school staff to ensure that
Active support for parent participation at parents view the implementation of due
school and at home process procedures and protections as timely,
Jefferson Elementary encourages parents to be adequate, and fair
active participants in their child’s education. At Jef- School staff at Jefferson Elementary try to be
ferson, the parental involvement is good; however, honest and open with parents about what is happen-
with some students, school staff would like to have ing and explain why. Parents and staff sometimes
the parents more involved. think that the process takes too long and would like
to have it move more quickly even though that is not
Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the always possible. School staff have found that if they
child’s plan, implementation, and timeline collect the appropriate data early, it is sometimes
When the SAT process moves into the evalua- easier to move more quickly later.
tion stage, formal paperwork is completed. Parents
receive a copy of these papers and sign consent
forms.
of the four secretaries in the school’s administrative Frequent and consistent parent-staff
office speaks Spanish. communication
School staff make home visits, and classroom
Ensuring that parents are involved in all teachers make home visits, place telephone calls to
phases of the rti process and receive active student homes, and have parent conferences to ex-
support for participation at school and at plain the interventions and to review progress. Par-
home ents are on the site council to help create the school-
Parents receive DIBELS scores and Title I no- wide strategic plan, are involved in the PTA, and
tification by mail. The Title I interventions are dis- have input on the Title I compact and the program
cussed at parent night (with parent training), and the plan.
school counselor invites parents to the school for
data review or for a parent interview at the various Progress data sent frequently to parents
individual problem-solving stages. Parents also re- Progress data are sent to parents at the end of
ceive support through home visits, newsletters, and each trimester. For those students in the EBIS pro-
telephone calls. cess, progress data are sent to parents more fre-
quently.
Parental notification
Tualatin Elementary has clearly specified times Written materials to inform parents of
when parents are notified: the right to ask for a special education
1. When a child is not doing well in the general evaluation at any time
curriculum and the Effective Behavior and The Tualatin District Rights and Responsibili-
Instructional Support (EBIS) Team reviews ties Handbook contains written information address-
screening data and places the student in a group ing the rights of parents to request a special evalu-
intervention ation any time. Advertisements also are placed in
2. When the EBIS Team places a student in a sec- local newspapers informing parents and community
ond group intervention members about agencies they can contact if they
3. When the EBIS Team designs an individual in- suspect a child has a disability.
tervention for the student
4. When special education referral is initiated. Par- Practices by school staff to ensure that
ents are continually informed about the plan and parents view the implementation of due
its implementation. process procedures and protections as timely,
adequate, and fair
Mutual agreement (parents and staff) on the The principal, the literacy specialists, or special
child’s plan, implementation, and timeline education teachers explain due process rights to par-
Parents rely on teachers’ professional expertise ents. In addition, the school mails a parents’ rights
to determine the appropriate curriculum and the handbook to parents before meetings.
length and frequency of the interventions. Tualatin
Elementary uses district decision rules to determine
the duration of the interventions.
4Sight Reading and Math (Success for All early age, building on emergent literacy that starts
Foundation) before formal schooling. Additional information can
http://www.successforall.net/ayp/4sight.htm be obtained from the author’s book Concepts about
4Sight assessments are one-hour tests that have ex- Print: What Have Children Learned about the Way
actly the same formats, coverage, look, and feel as We Print Language? Published by Heinemann.
individual state reading and math assessments. They
produce overall scores predictive of students’ scores CORE Phonics and Phonological Segmentation
on state assessments. (Consortium on Reading Excellence, Inc.)
http://corelearn.com/
AIMSweb (Edformation, Inc.) CORE works collaboratively with educators to sup-
http://www.aimsweb.com/products/systems/pro_ port literacy achievement growth for all students.
complete/description.php CORE’s literacy implementation support services
AIMSweb Pro distributes a variety of packaged Cur- and products help build capacity for effective in-
riculum-Based Measurement (CBM) testing materi- struction by laying a foundation of research-based
als and web-based software to support a three-tier knowledge, supporting the use of proven tools, and
progress monitoring and responsiveness-to-interven- developing literacy leadership.
tion system in the areas of language arts, math, and
reading. Corrective Reading (SRA/McGraw Hill)
http://www.sra4kids.com
American Federation of Teachers Corrective Reading provides intensive interven-
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/ tion for students in fourth through 12th grade who
remedial.pdf are reading one or more years below grade level.
Building on the Best, Learning from What Works: This program delivers tightly sequenced, carefully
Five Promising Remedial Reading Intervention Pro- planned lessons that give struggling students the
grams. The purpose of the series is to promote high structure and practice necessary to become skilled,
standards, effectiveness, replicability, and support fluent readers and better learners.
structures as criteria for promising reading programs.
The five programs featured in the report are research- Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Program (TASA
based: Direct Instruction, Early Steps, Exemplary Literacy Online)
Center for Reading Instruction, Lindamood-Bell, http://www.tasaliteracy.com/drp/drp-main.html
and Reading Recovery. The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Program is
the basis of a line of reading comprehension tests for
Basic Reading Inventory (Kendall/Hunt students in first through 12th grade and beyond. The
Publishing Company) tests are criterion-referenced and allow precise track-
http://www.kendallhunt.com/index.cfm ing of a student’s reading development over time.
Basic Reading Inventory, by Jerry L. Johns, is an
early literacy assessment for pre-primary through Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (Riverside/
12th grade. Each book contains multimedia materials Houghton Mifflin)
demonstrating administration of a reading inventory http//:www.riverpub.com/
developed for use by classroom teachers, students in The Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR) is a
pre-service education, teachers taking introductory criterion-referenced reading test developed by F.G.
and advanced reading courses, reading specialists, Roswell, J.S. Chall, M.E. Curtis, and G. Kearns. Its
and others who are interested in in-service work in purpose is to assess individual student achievement
reading assessment. in print awareness, phonological awareness, letters
and sounds, word recognition, word analysis, oral
Concepts About Print (CAP) (Marie M. Clay) reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading compre-
Coined by New Zealand educator Marie Clay, con- hension, spelling, and word meaning. It is adminis-
cepts about print (CAP) refers to what emergent read- tered on an as-needed basis to selected students in
ers need to understand about how printed language kindergarten through 12th grade (ages 5 to adult)
works and how it represents language. Successful who are not making progress in their reading inter-
beginning readers develop concepts about print at an ventions.
Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading Oregon State Assessments (OSA) (Office
and Spelling (LETRS) (Sopris West) of Assessment in the Oregon Department of
http://www.sopriswest.com/ Education)
This professional development program provides http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=169
reading coaches, specialists, and teachers with a Oregon’s assessments are used to show how well
comprehensive, practical understanding of how their individual students have mastered Oregon standards
students learn to read, write, and spell—and how and to demonstrate the effectiveness of schools and
they can use this understanding to improve and fo- districts in preparing students to meet standards.
cus instruction. Mastery is measured in three general ways: knowl-
edge and skill tests, on-demand state performance
Letter Sound Fluency Test (Vanderbilt assessments, and classroom work samples.
University)
Copies can be order from flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)
The Letter Sound Fluency Test was developed by (Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Research on
Doug and Lynn Fuchs to assess a student’s capacity to Human Development)
translate letters into sounds fluently: a student has one http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/
minute to say the sounds for the 26 letters. The test PALS Reading and PALS Math enable classroom
takes five minutes to administer and was developed teachers to accommodate diverse learners and help
for use with kindergarteners through first-graders. a large proportion of these students achieve success.
PALS Reading and PALS Math have been approved
Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test (MIALT) by the U.S. Department of Education’s Program Ef-
(Iowa Department of Education) fectiveness Panel for inclusion in the National Diffu-
http://www.state.ia.us/educate/index.html sion Network on effective educational practices.
The Mid Iowa Achievement Level Test is a criterion-
referenced test, meaning that it measures knowledge Precision Teaching (PT) (concept by Ogden
within an established set of standards. Given each Lindsley)
year in the fall and in the spring, the MIALT is help- Precision Teaching is a concept of basing educational
ful in assessing a student’s progress toward identified decisions on changes in continuous self-monitored
standards. performance results that are displayed on charts.
Additional information about the concept can be
Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (MBSP) (ProEd, Inc.) found in the following resources:
http://www.proedinc.com/ • Lindsley, O.R. (1992). Precision teaching: Dis-
Developed at Vanderbilt University by Lynn Fuchs, coveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior
Carol Hamlett, and Douglas Fuchs, the Monitoring Analysis, 25, 51-57.
Basic Skills Progress is a computer program that au- • Lindsley, O.R. (1990). Precision teaching: By
tomatically conducts curriculum-based measurement teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Chil-
and monitoring of student progress in reading, math dren, 22(3), 10-15.
computation, and math concepts and applications. • West, R.P., & Young, K.R. (1992). Precision teach-
Students receive immediate feedback on their prog- ing. In R.P. West & L.A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Designs
ress, and teachers receive individual and class-wide for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skin-
reports to help them develop more effective instruc- ner (pp. 113-146). Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.
tion. MBSP unit options include basic reading, basic • White O.R. (1986). Precision teaching—Precision
math computation, and basic math concepts and ap- learning. Exceptional Children, 52, 522-534.
plications.
Quick Reads (Pearson Learning Group’s Modern
Open Court (SRA/McGraw Hill) Curriculum Press)
http://www.sra4kids.com/ http://www.quickreads.org/
Open Court Reading is a research-based curricu- QuickReads are short texts to be read quickly and
lum grounded in systematic, explicit instruction of with meaning. The QuickReads program consists of
phonemic awareness, phonics and word knowledge, three levels: B, C, and D. These texts support auto-
comprehension skills and strategies, inquiry skills maticity with the high-frequency words and phonics/
and strategies, and writing and language arts skills syllabic patterns needed to be a successful reader at a
and strategies. particular grade level.
Read Naturally (Read Naturally, Inc.) The Six-Minute Solution: A Fluency Program
http://www.readnaturally.com/ (Sopris West)
Students work with the Read Naturally stories on http://www.sopriswest.com/
paper and read along to fluent recordings of the sto- The Six-Minute Solution is a research-based way to
ries on cassettes or audio CDs. Reading along is the build students’ reading fluency in six minutes a day.
teacher modeling step, which helps students learn It can be use as a complement to any reading curricu-
new words and encourages proper pronunciation, lum and as an intervention program. Students do re-
expression, and phrasing. peated readings of one-minute nonfiction passages as
their same-level partners note the number of words
Read Well (Sopris West) read correctly.
http://www.sopriswest.com/
Read Well is a validated, research-based and data- SRA Reading Mastery (SRA/McGraw-Hill)
driven core reading curriculum that teaches students http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/readingmastery.htm
the important building blocks of literacy while pro- Reading Mastery helps students develop strategies
viding the foundation and skills to develop lifelong for reading and understanding through the use of a
readers. It is designed to generate quantitative learn- synthetic phonics approach. Its use has proven to re-
ing gains for all students, with struggling students duce the prevalence of reading problems and elevate
showing the most substantial growth by combining the reading skills of at-risk children well into the av-
explicit, systematic instruction, rich themes and con- erage range.
tent, and structured learning activities.
Wilson Reading (Wilson Language Training)
REWARDS (Sopris West) http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/
http://www.sopriswest.com/ The Wilson Reading System is a research-based
The REWARDS reading intervention program is a reading and writing program. It is a complete cur-
validated, research-based program that can be used riculum for teaching decoding and encoding (spell-
as an effective intervention in general and special ed- ing), beginning with phoneme segmentation.
ucation, remedial reading, summer school, and after-
school programs. The program improves decoding, Write Well (Sopris West)
fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, content-area http://www.sopriswest.com/
reading and writing, and test-taking abilities. Write Well provides daily dictation lessons for teach-
ing students how to translate spoken into written
Road to the Code (Brookes) English and helps them master the conventions of
http://www.brookespublishing.com sentence writing. In 15 to 20 minutes per day, these
Road to the Code is an 11-week program for teach- field-tested methods can be incorporated into Read
ing phonemic awareness and letter sound correspon- Well instruction.
dence to kindergartners and first-graders who are
having difficulty with their early literacy skills.
Part Two
Student Case Studies
Bryanna is an 8-year-old, Caucasian female. She is days a week, with Scholastic Literacy Place. The
in third grade and has not been retained. class is split into smaller reading groups, and Bry-
anna is in a reading group of six students.
Third Grade (2005 – 2006) Tier 1 Screening. The school administered DI-
Tier 1 BELS in August 2005 and again in December 2005.
Bryanna is in a general education class of 17 Table 5.1 shows Bryanna’s scores compared to the
students. Her general education (Tier 1) reading in- established cut scores.
struction takes place for 90 minutes each day, five
Behavior. This school uses a district behavior • Bryanna is also being tutored for 50 minutes
discipline form to gather school-wide behavior data. twice a week. She is in a group with six other
No behavior concerns were noted for Bryanna. students and is working on Balanced Literacy
using non-fiction readers.
Tier 2 Tier 2 progress monitoring. Table 5.2 shows
Tier 2 interventions. Bryanna began receiving Bryanna’s progress monitoring scores for oral read-
Tier 2 interventions in second grade, and they con- ing fluency and retell fluency measures. The table
tinued into third grade, as follows: also notes the established cut scores for designating
• SRA Reading Mastery II and Lindamood Pho- a child as at some risk in these areas.
nemic Sequencing (LiPS) with the special edu-
cation teacher for 60 minutes each day, five days
a week.
Table 5.2. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and Retell Fluency (RTF)
Bryanna’s ORF At Some Risk Bryanna’s RTF At Some Risk
Date
Scores ORF Cut Scores Scores RTF Cut Scores
Sept. Week 1 41 < 77 17 < 38
Sept. Week 3 56 35
Oct. Week 1 47 16
Oct. Week 4 64 28
Nov. Week 2 62 32
Nov. Week 4 Absent Absent
Dec. Week 2 64 < 92 44 < 46
Jan. Week 2 88 9
Jan. Week 4 100 54
Feb. Week 1 73 0
Third Grade (2005 – 2006) “at-risk” status is equivalent to the measure’s profi-
Tier 1 ciency level. Bryanna’s math score placed her in the
Bryanna is in a general education class of 17 stu- unsatisfactory range, therefore “at risk.”
dents for math. Her general education (Tier 1) math Quarterly assessments also are given at the end
instruction takes place for 60 minutes each day, five of each grading period. The “at risk” status is again
days a week, with Houghton-Mifflin Central. based on degree of mastery toward the standards that
Tier 1 screening. The school administered the are evaluated by the assessments. Bryanna placed in
Terra Nova screening measure in August to all the unsatisfactory and partial mastery range on quar-
third-grade students. The cut score used to designate terly assessments in October.
Disability And Eligibility Determination For interventions, she still needed to exhibit a discrep-
Tier 3 – Special Education ancy to be eligible with an SLD designation.
Bryanna was referred for a special education However, after looking at the scores, the team
evaluation due to inadequate response to interven- determined that her biggest skill deficits were in
tion. The evaluation employed discrepancy criteria the area of speech-language. Her Spoken Language
and language severity rating scales. Table 5.4, be- Quotient of 67 on the TOLD P:3 assessment was
ginning on page 5.29, lists all of the components and more than two standard deviations below the mean.
measures used in the comprehensive evaluation. This score qualified her for Tier 3 (special educa-
As a result of the evaluation, Bryanna did not tion) interventions in the area of speech-language.
qualify for special education services with an SLD/ The school is awaiting parental consent at an ini-
LD designation as school personnel had anticipated tial Individualized Education Program (IEP) meet-
she would. Although she did not respond to Tier 2 ing to begin Tier 3 (special education) services.
Intra-individual
Differences
Information or Language 11-29-2005 TOLD P:3 Spoken Language Quotient = 67 1½ standard deviations below Individual Skill Deficits
Processing Involvement the mean
Behavioral and Academic 1-11-2006 BASC and BASC teacher ratings reflected attention and BASC and Conners’ scores Cognitive inattention and
Screening Conners’ learning problems in the at-risk range. All are not typically used to learning problems in the at-
other behavioral areas presented in the average qualify a student as PC risk range.
range. Adaptability and social skills were rated (SLD) unless they were in the
above average, presenting relative strengths. clinically significant range
Conners’ teacher ratings show elevated scores or the high end of the at-risk
for areas related to cognitive inattention. range for areas related to
Conners’ parent ratings reflect no areas of attention problems that may
concern; all scores fell within the average be a component of processing
ranges. The BASC parent ratings also reflected difficulties.
no areas of concern.
Appropriate Learning At the IEP IEP Team Determined to be appropriate IEP Team determined that
Experiences meeting Decision Bryanna has had access
2/2/06 to appropriate learning
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
5.29
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Test/
Assessment/ Cut Score/
Component Meeting Type of Data or Score Comments
Procedure Criteria
Date
5.30
History
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
* Bryanna’s school uses state criteria of 70 or above for a learning disability (Perceptual Communicative Disability) as opposed to SLIC (Significant Limited Intellectual
Capacity). To qualify for SLIC, a student must have three measures—cognitive, educational achievement, and adaptive behavior—with scores of 70 or less.
** The speech-language checklist consists of selecting the area of speech-language impairment (i.e., expressive/receptive delay). Then, to qualify, that impairment must
cause a need for augmentative communication, substantial behavior problems due to communication, or interference with oral or written communication for academics.
Jayden is an 8-year-old boy in second grade. He is series. The general education teacher gave read-
multiracial. He has never been retained but has con- ing instruction to the whole class and also to small
tinued, since kindergarten, to struggle with reading. groups. Seven students were in Jayden’s group.
The school administered the Early Screening
Kindergarten (2003–2004) Inventory (ESI-K) in August 2003 and administered
Tier 1 DIBELS in mid-September, mid-January, and at
In kindergarten, Jayden’s general education (Tier the end of the third week in April. Table 5.6 shows
1) reading instruction consisted of 120 minutes each Jayden’s scores compared to the established cut
day, five days a week, with the Harcourt Trophies scores.
Table 5.6. Jayden’s Tier 1 early Screening Inventory and DIBELS Scores
Assessment Jayden’s Scores At Risk Cut-off Score
ESI-K 28 <21
Fall DIBELS - ISF 28 <7
Fall DIBELS - LNF 5 <7
Mid-Year DIBELS - ISF 23 <25
Mid-Year DIBELS - LNF 7 <27
Mid-Year DIBELS – PSF 27 <18
Spring DIBELS - LNF 8 <40
Spring DIBELS - PSF 25 <35
Spring DIBELS – NWF 6 <25
The at-risk cut scores for these DIBELS assessments are determined at the state level.
Scoring for DIBELS is as follows:
• Initial Sound Fluency (ISF) = number of initial sounds correct in one minute
• Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) = number of letters named correctly in one minute.
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) = number of correct phonemes produced in one minute
• Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) = number of letter-sounds produced correctly in one minute.
School staff members decided that Jayden phonemic awareness, specifically letter sounds, with
needed Tier 2 interventions because his classroom Earobics and Exemplary Center for Reading Instruc-
performance was well below that of his peers and tion (ECRI) suggested as interventions; and phonics,
his fall DIBELS scores placed him in the “inten- specifically alphabet recognition, with ECRI, small
sive” group for his recommended instructional lev- group suggested as an intervention.
el. Jayden’s letter naming fluency (LNF) score of During the third nine-week period, concerns
12 letter names per minute and his nonsense word about letter sounds continued, although nonsense
fluency (NWF) score of 5 placed him in the “high word fluency had improved. Interventions were con-
risk” category. His phoneme segmentation score of tinued. Low scores in oral reading fluency produced
20 phonemes per minute fell in the “emerging” cat- concerns in this area, and ECRI, small group inter-
egory. (He should have reached the established level ventions were suggested. Jayden’s nonsense word
with a score of 35 by the end of kindergarten.) fluency continued to improve during the fourth nine-
week period and surpassed the goal score, but flu-
Tier 2 ency in oral reading remained a concern and ECRI,
Jayden began receiving Tier 2 instruction in the small-group intervention was continued.
fall of first grade. School personnel administered For 20 minutes each day, five days a week, the
Fox in a Box diagnostics to determine Jayden’s spe- general education teacher gave reading instruction
cific needs. to Jayden and four other students using the Harcourt
Fox in a Box was administered in October and Intervention with ECRI methodology. In addition,
analyzed the five areas of reading: phonemic aware- for 20 minutes a day, four days a week, a Title I as-
ness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehen- sistant gave reading instruction to Jayden and two to
sion. At this same time, an Elementary Reading four other students using the five-step lesson plan.
Academic Improvement Plan was developed. One day a week, the Title I assistant worked with
Areas of concern and interventions during the Jayden alone for 10 minutes.
second nine weeks of first grade were as follows: Progress monitoring for Tier 2. Table 5.8 shows
5.32 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Jayden’s progress monitoring scores for Harcourt making limited progress, as measured by both his
Holistic Listening Comprehension measures. The class work and DIBELS screens. His DIBELS
table also lists the scores corresponding to mastery scores indicated that he finally did meet and sur-
and indicating potential risk. These measures were pass the benchmark of 35 on phoneme segmenta-
collected about every seven weeks. The school is tion fluency; however, Jayden should have obtained
currently evaluating this frequency with the hope this score by the end of kindergarten. His nonsense
that they will administer progress monitoring mea- word fluency score of 30 was at the bottom range of
sures for Tier 2 more frequently in the future. “moderate risk.” His oral reading fluency score of
School staff also monitored Jayden’s progress 18 words correct per minute with 11 errors was in
on the individual interventions and administered the the “high risk” category. These scores showed some
ECRI Mastery Test to assess his progress. Results of improvement but not enough to meet grade-level
these assessments are unavailable. expectations. The team decided he needed more as-
In January, the school decided that Jayden was sistance, so they moved on to Tier 3 interventions.
Table 5.8. Jayden’s Harcourt Holistic Listening Comprehension Progress Monitoring Scores
Harcourt Holistic At-Risk
Date Jayden’ Scores
Listening Comprehension Indicators
Book 1-1 November 100%
Book 1-2 December 90%
Mastery = 80%
Book 1-3 February 100%
At Risk = 60%
Book 1-4 April 50%
Book 1-5 May 80%
Table 5.10. Progress Monitoring—Sight Word Drill Sandwich Activity 2004 – 2005
Date 8/19 10/20 1/18
Jayden’s Scores 2 words 21 words 42 words
Cut Score 18 words 43 words
Table 5.11. Progress Monitoring for AIMSweb ORF for 2004 – 2005
Date 2/14 2/18 2/21 2/28 3/07 3/18 3/21 4/4 4/11 4/25
17 words read 14/6 20/10 20/8 16/8 27/9 19/10 19/8 25/8 23/5
Student correctly per
Score minute with
9 errors
The student support team evaluated Jayden’s limited to first grade (and have now been cut com-
intervention progress and found that the interven- pletely). Thus, the team decided to add Tier 4 inter-
tion addressing phonemic awareness using Earobics ventions to Jayden’s reading instruction. (See Dis-
showed limited effectiveness. Jayden did not meet ability and Eligibility Determination on page 5.35
his goal of an average of 80 percent correct across and Tier 4 – Special Education on page 5.36.)
time.
Jayden did meet his goal on the sight word in- Second Grade (2005–2006)
tervention. Tier 1
Based on research in oral reading fluency, the In second grade, Jayden’s general education
team set Jayden’s goal for increasing his oral reading (Tier 1) reading instruction continued to consist of
fluency rate by 1.86 words read correctly per minute the Harcourt Trophies Series for 120 minutes each
per week, which falls between a Realistic level (an day, five days a week. Instruction was provided to
increase of 1.5 words read correctly per minute per the whole class (approximately 20 students) and to
week) and an Ambitious level (an increase of 2.0 small groups (seven students). Seven students were
words read correctly per minute per week). How- in Jayden’s group.
ever, Jayden’s oral reading fluency global progress Screening. During second grade (current year),
monitoring scores showing an increase per week of the school administered Harcourt Oral Reading Flu-
0.73 words read correctly per minute was well be- ency (HORF) assessments to Jayden in September
low his target. and January. Table 5.12 shows Jayden’s scores com-
Based on a synthesis of data from prior assess- pared to the established cut scores.
ment in phonemic awareness and phonics (Fox in The school decided that Jayden needed Tier 2
a Box) and the intervention results above, the team interventions because he displayed classroom per-
determined that Jayden needed a more intensive and formance well below his peers and he did not meet
structured phonics-based program. The team noted his goals on his interventions. Jayden’s September
that many of the extra resources available to carry Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency screening data of 41
out such a program in first grade would not be avail- correct words per minute was below the cut score
able in second grade because Title V dollars were of 54.
Table 5.14. Progress Monitoring for AIMSweb ORF for 2005 – 2006
Date 1/16 1/30
Student 52 wcm / 42/5
Score 4 errors
The team also made note of the extraordinary Tier 4 - Special Education
amount of resources being used to generate this Jayden’s Special Education Reading Interven-
small amount of improvement. Many of the extra re- tion Curriculum includes Harcourt Intervention
sources available to this student in first grade would with added five-step research-based lesson planning
not be available in second grade because Title V Extensions in Reading series for comprehension for
dollars were limited to first grade at the time (as of 45 minutes per day, four days a week. Jayden’s gen-
March 2006, these funds were cut completely). eral education teacher and the exceptional education
Aware that the extra resources available to this teacher provide the instruction. Jayden’s instruc-
student in first grade would not be available in sec- tional group consists of two students.
ond grade and concerned about the minimal amount Special education – progress monitoring.
of improvement, the team asked for a psychoeduca- Jayden’s progress will be monitored every two
tional evaluation, including intellectual assessment weeks. Measures will be from all Tier 1 and Tier 2
(Differential Abilities Scales), academic ability as- assessments, AIMSweb ORF, and AIMSweb Maze.
sessment (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test), The at-risk cut scores for both the AIMSweb ORF
and cognitive processing assessment (Jordan Left- and Maze assessments are < 25 percent. Table 5.15
Right Reversal Test and Woodcock-Johnson Tests shows Jayden’s AIMSweb oral reading fluency
of Cognitive Development). Testing took place in scores. His January 16 score of 52 words read cor-
June, at the end of Jayden’s first-grade year. Based rectly per minute with four errors places him at the
upon current state requirements, the student was de- 25th percentile. The exceptional education team set
termined to have a specific learning disability and a goal to move Jayden closer to the 50th percentile.
entitled to receive appropriate exceptional student A target of 90 words read correctly per minute with
education services based upon a significant discrep- nine errors would put him slightly below the 50th
ancy between his measured intellectual ability and percentile. For second grade, an “ambitious” goal
his achievement scores with accompanying cogni- is to gain two words read correctly per minute per
tive processing deficits. See Table 5.16 beginning on week. Jayden’s goal was just slightly higher at 2.05
page 5.37 for a list of the components of the com- words read correctly per minute per week.
prehensive evaluation.
Table 5.15. Progress Monitoring for AIMSweb ORF for 2005 – 2006
Date 1/16 1/23 1/30 2/06 2/13 2/20 2/22 3/01 3/08
52 words 53/4 42/5 58/4 72/4 67/1 68/1 65/2 73/3
correct per
Student
minute
Score
with 4
errors
Information or 6/1/05 Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities, Processing Speed Cluster > 1 sd below • Analysis of raw data and observations of
Third Edition SS = 90 intellectual test behaviors
Language Processing
ability measure • Noted similar response patterns on
Involvement (118) achievement test
12/15/04 Observation, language screening, intellectual Gross indicators of Harcourt’s • Used to assess presence of indications of
6/1/05 assessment dysfunction (none PsychCorp processing deficits
observed); Clinical Screening
CNS (Central Evaluation of Language Test (CELF-
Nervous System) Fundamentals - 4 total test 4) criterion
Involvement score = 21; Differentiated for passage =
Abilities Scale (DAS) 16; DAS GIA
General Cognitive Ability standard score
(GCA) = 118 > 70
5.37
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Test or Analysis/
Cut-Off/
Component Meeting Assessment/Procedure Type of Data or Score Manipulation
Criteria
Date of Score Comments
11/22/04 Sensory screenings Pass both areas at all Hearing indi- • Assess vision, hearing, and possible
11/09/04 Review of records levels cated at 25 db at language acquisition issues
RTI Manual
5.38
Exclusionary Criteria 4000 Hz; language
Vision 20/20
at far and near
distance
11/09/04 Teacher Checklist Presence of strengths Strengths noted • Used to rule out other concerns/
checked contributing factors; checked for scatter
11/09/04 Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 2nd Ed. KBIT-2 SS > 70 • Non-verbal score much higher than verbal
Behavioral and (K-BIT 2) Composite SS = 103 on K-BIT 2
Verbal Composite SS =
Academic Screening
112; Nonverbal Composite
SS = 134
11/09/04 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test WIAT-II Discrepancies • Achievement scores consistent
(WIAT – II) Word Recog. SS = 95 among
Num. Op. SS=96 subtests within
Spelling SS = 96 instruments > 18
points
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency 12 Letters CPM < 25
DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 20 Segments CPM < 10
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency 5 Sounds CPM < 13
Fox in a Box Level 1 Spelling Established
Level 2 Alphabet criteria based on
identification number correct
Level 2 Decoding
Level 2 Sight Word ID
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
2/15/05 Responsiveness-to-Intervention Level and slope of trend 3 data points • One intervention was successful in in-
line on sight word acquisi- below aim line creasing words identified correctly but did
tion and phonemic aware- not have a beneficial effect upon other indi-
ness assessments cators of reading achievement
Teacher Checklist Presence of strengths Missing skills • Used to rule out social skills deficits
Social Skills indicate a need • Missing skills not noted
Deficits for further
screening
Informal observation & teacher interview Anecdotal information Missing skills • Examination for indicators of need for
indicate a need further screening
Adaptive Behavior for further • Missing skills not noted
screening
Parents were involved in development/ NA NA NA
implementation of interventions and were
informed of outcomes and further team efforts to
enhance their child’s learning. They were notified
Parents’ Role and gave permission for assessment. As part
of the eligibility team, they agreed to eligibility
and placement and helped to develop goals and
objectives. They were informed of their due
process rights.
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
5.40
•Inadequate response to intervention,
adequate response to interventions only
Eligibility Decision with a level of intervention/support that
and Professional cannot be sustained in a general education
Judgment setting without outside support, and a
discrepancy of > 1 sd between the measure
of intellectual ability and both the academic
achievement score and a score of cognitive
processing that is assumed to be a major
contributing factor.
NA Recommendation of the IEP team based on one of Report card grades, Lack of success •To determine success in meeting IEP goals
the following criteria: regular classroom work in meeting IEP and functioning in the general curriculum
1. When the student has made sufficient samples, documentation goals and/or program
progress in meeting the goals of the IEP and of mastery of a sufficient functioning • Has not arrived at this place yet
has successfully completed a trial placement percentage of the required in the general
in the general curriculum in which the ability basic skills curriculum
to function adequately, considering intellectual program
level, has been demonstrated, or
Special Education 2. Where the student successfully completed a
Exit Criteria trial placement in the general curriculum program
in which the ability to function adequately,
considering intellectual level, has been
demonstrated, or
3. When the student demonstrates successful
achievement in the general curriculum without
support, or that the disability no longer interferes
with the student’s ability to function in the
educational program.
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
Does your model allow for SLD to co-exist with __MR? X E/BD? * sensory impairments? * motor impairments?
* Although a student with sensory or motor impairments may have a concurrent specific learning disability, the determination of the specific learning disability must rule
out the sensory or motor impairment as the exclusive explanation for the lack of educational achievement.
Lauren is a 10-year-old Caucasian girl. She is in Tier 1 Screening – Reading. The Idaho Reading
third grade and has not been retained. Indicator (IRI) and the Idaho Standards Achieve-
ment Test (ISAT) are used to gather school-wide
Third Grade (2004–2005) screening measures/benchmarks for reading.
General Education - Tier 1 Lauren’s scores on these assessments are shown
Lauren’s third-grade teacher uses the Macmil- in Tables 5.17 and 5.18. Because Lauren scored be-
lan/McGraw-Hill reading program/series for 60 low grade level on the IRI and below basic profi-
minutes each day for reading instruction. Between ciency on the ISAT, school staff included Lauren in
16 and 20 students are in Lauren’s general education Tier 2 interventions.
reading group.
Table 5.19. Lauren’s Tier 2 Progress Monitoring DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Scores
Correct Words Per Fluency
Date Indicators of Risk
Minute Percent Accuracy
10/18/04 68 94%
10/26/04 59 89%
11/04/04 59 97%
Third-Grade Spring District
11/08/04 58 88%
CBM Benchmark: 120 correct
11/15/04 59 88% words per minute
11/25/04 49 94%
12/01/04 58 Not Noted
12/16/04 68 94%
12/17/04 68 Not Noted
12/20/04 Christmas
Vacation
12/27/04
1/06/05 62 Not Noted
1/13/05 78 95%
1/20/05 70 95%
Table 5.20. Third-Grade Tier 3 Progress Monitoring – DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Correct Words per Fluency
Date Indicators of Risk
Minute Percent Accuracy
Using First-Grade Reading Probes
District CBM Benchmarks
1/25/05 66 94%
1/31/05 First-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 54 CWPM
2/10/05 73 90%
2/18/05 88 88% Second-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 94 CWPM
2/24/05 69 88%
2/28/05 72 96% Third-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 120 CWPM
Changed Progress Monitoring Tool
To Second-Grade DIBELS Probes
3/08/05 88 97%
3/14/05
3/23/05 79 93%
3/28/05 Spring Break
4/07/05 66 92%
4/14/05 75 97%
4/20/05 82 87%
4/28/05 72 86%
Disability and Eligibility Determination near (but below) grade level. Her words per minute
Eligibility determination is based on academic score on the IRI was 52, nonsense words score was
testing, intellectual testing, IRI, ISAT, classroom 35 out of 50 points, sight words score was 9 out of
observation, work samples, and responsiveness to 10, and comprehension was 100 percent.
intervention. When Lauren was in third grade, reading inter-
In addition, the following information was used ventions and progress monitoring continued during
to determine disability and eligibility: the fall of 2004. Her base line was 68 correct words
per minute with 94 percent accuracy on first-grade
Evidence of resistance to interventions. Lauren reading probes. Her goal was 86 correct words per
has had more than two years of direct reading inter- minute with 98 percent accuracy on first-grade
vention since her Intervention Plan was initially writ- probes. As indicated on her progress-monitoring
ten January 15, 2003. Interventions have included graph, she continued to demonstrate a slow rate of
Read Naturally, Lindamood Bell, Edmark, and Open skill acquisition and inconsistency of accuracy. On
Court. In second and third grade, she participated in January 24, 2005, an additional intervention of 30
reading switch (one hour per day, five days a week) minutes of pre-teaching, or “front-loading,” was
in which instruction was differentiated for her read- added. During this 30 minutes, time was spent pre-
ing level. In addition, she received small-group in- paring Lauren for the coming reading instruction.
struction with the school’s special education teacher Following a decision rule to consider changes
to help minimize environmental issues that could be for a student when probes result in three consecutive
affecting her rate of progress, such as the possibil- data points above or below the aim line, a change
ity of her inability to filter out noise and activities was made for Lauren. Beginning on March 8, 2005,
occurring around her. Her pre-intervention level of second-grade reading probes were used for progress
performance indicated she had a discrepancy ratio monitoring. It was noted that her skills regressed af-
of 3.13 when comparing her performance (32 cor- ter spring break (from 79 correct words per minute
rect words per minute) to typical peers (100 correct to 66 correct words per minute). She continued to
words per minute). She continued to make steady, demonstrate inconsistency and slow rate of skill ac-
albeit slow, progress. Lauren’s progress was moni- quisition.
tored with first-grade reading probes using DIBELS.
The goal set for her was that, within nine weeks, Consideration of resources necessary to sup-
using grade-level passages within the general edu- port the student to participate and progress in the
cation classroom, she should read orally at a median general education curriculum being beyond those
rate of 100 words read correctly per minute. available in the general education curriculum. Al-
A formal follow-up meeting was held on March though Lauren’s reading skills have improved, they
9, 2004. Lauren continued progress above her aim have not improved at the rate necessary to bring her
line. One concern the team had was the amount of to near grade level, despite more than two years of
instruction missed over several weeks due to sur- direct and intense interventions. She will need direct
gery to remove her adenoids and tonsils. A change in and small-group instruction for an indefinite period.
the music schedule affected her reading instruction Academic support as well as curricular modifica-
time. However, she ended at 45 correct words per tions and adaptations within the general education
minute and seemed to be making positive progress. classroom are also necessary.
Another formal follow-up meeting was held at
the end of Lauren’s second-grade year, in May 2005. Evidence of severe discrepancy from peer’s
It was reported that she was doing great in all areas in performance in the areas of concern. Lauren’s flu-
the classroom. Her reading progress monitoring con- ency on second-grade probes is 72 correct words per
tinued to show an upward trend. Her median score minute. This is more than 1.5 times discrepant from
over the previous three weeks was 69, although her the expected benchmark on the third-grade DIBELS
last score was a 59, demonstrating an inconsistency probes. She scored “2,” then “1,” then “1” con-
in retention of skill acquisition. She scored a “2” on secutively on the three administrations of the Idaho
the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) in the spring of Reading Indicator during third grade and scored 1
2004. A score of “1” indicates achievement below then 2 during both trials given in second grade. On
grade level. A score of “2” indicates achievement the Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) ad-
ministered in fall 2004, her Rash Unit (RIT) score of that a severe discrepancy exists between intel-
166 on the Idaho Standards Achievement Test was lectual ability and achievement in one or more
below basic at the third-grade level and 28 points of the following areas: oral expression, listening
below proficient at a third-grade level. This score comprehension, written expression, basic read-
represents the 17th percentile. ing skills, reading comprehension, mathemat-
In addition, a curriculum-based evaluation was ics calculation, or mathematical reasoning. A
performed (01/31/05) using the Comprehensive severe discrepancy exists when the broad area
Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Lauren score on an achievement test is 15 or more stan-
showed low-average ability in phonological aware- dard score points below a regressed full-scale
ness with a strength in blending and segmenting intellectual ability score. When the broad area
non-words. Her phonological short-term memory score is within 15 standard score points of the
and fluency scores put her in the average range. Her regressed full-scale intellectual ability score, but
responses suggested strength in rote memorizations a subtest score is 15 or more points lower than
and recall but a weakness in concept formation and the regressed full-scale intellectual ability score,
reasoning skills. Helping her recognize patterns and the evaluation team may use professional judg-
how information compares to prior knowledge is ment to determine whether a severe discrepancy
also a key in helping her learn basic skills. exists.
4. The severe discrepancy between ability and
Convergence of evidence that logically and em- achievement is not primarily the result of a vi-
pirically supports the team’s decisions. All informa- sual, hearing, or motor impairment; a cognitive
tion obtained through the evaluation and interven- impairment; emotional disturbance; or environ-
tions process supports this student’s educational mental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
need and eligibility for special education in the area It was determined that Lauren’s primary disability is
of reading. She will continue to require an individu- a learning disability.
alized plan for intense and sustained interventions
and support to benefit and progress in the general Special Education
education curriculum. Special education reading intervention curricu-
An evaluation team will determine that a student lum. An instructional assistant works with Lauren
is eligible for special education services as a student and two or three others in a small group for one hour
with a learning disability when all of the following a day, five days a week. The interventions are Read
criteria are met: Naturally and Spelling Mastery.
1. An evaluation that meets the criteria specified Special education progress monitoring. The
in the State Special Education Manual has been measures used in special education to determine
conducted. progress include DIBELS/Running Records (data
2. A team member other than the student’s general collected biweekly), comprehension questions from
education teacher has observed the student’s Read Naturally (data collected weekly), and Spelling
academic performance in the general education Mastery (data collected daily). Table 5.21 on page
classroom to document relevant behavior. 5.46 shows Lauren’s progress monitoring scores on
3. A comparison of assessment results determines DIBELS oral reading fluency assessments.
Table 5.21. Special Education Progress Monitoring • DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Correct Words Per Fluency
Date Indicators of Risk
Minute Percent Accuracy
With Third-Grade DIBELS Probes District CBM Benchmarks
9/16/05 86 correct words per 94%
First-Grade Spring CBM
minute
Benchmark: 54 correct words per
9/23/05 76 93% minute
9/30/05 74 76%
Second-Grade Spring CBM
10/14/05 93 96% Benchmark: 94 correct words per
minute
10/21/05 86 82%
11/04/05 111 95% Third-Grade Spring CBM
Benchmark: 120 correct words
11/18/05 96 93%
per minute
12/02/05 95 99%
12/09/05 112 95%
12/16/05 105 92%
With Fourth-Grade DIBELS Probes
1/06/06 75 88%
1/13/06 85 86%
1/20/06 89 91%
1/27/06 75 92%
2003–2005 CTOPP – Phonological Awareness Standard Score (SS) Analysis of scores We used Achievement and
sums=14; %ile=12 is dependent on IQ scores to validate the
CTOPP – Phonological Memory SS sums=19; %ile=42 what was used and RTI process.
CTOPP – Rapid Naming SS sums=17; %ile=27 why.
CTOPP – Alt. Phon. Awareness SS sums=24; %ile=79
CTOPP – Alt. Rapid Naming SS sums=13; %ile=8
WIAT-II – Word Reading SS=84; %ile=14
Multifaceted
WIAT-II – Reading Comprehension SS=105; %ile=63
WIAT-II – Pseudoword Decoding SS=80; %ile=9
WIAT-II – Listening Comprehension SS=108; %ile=70
Stanford Binet 5 – Non-verbal IQ SS=92
Stanford Binet 5 – Verbal IQ SS=100
Stanford Binet 5 – Full Scale IQ SS=96
DIBELS
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
5.47
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
Test/Meeting
Component Assessment/Procedure Type of Data & Score Criteria Comments
Date
5.48
3/21/05 Reading Comprehension – avg. 105 to qualify as a
Math Reasoning – below avg. 82 student with learn-
Numerical Operations – ” 85 ing disabilities
Spelling – below avg. 83 under current state
Written Expression – avg. 109 criteria
CNS (Central 3/21/05 Assessed through the Stanford-Binet 5, looking SS N/A Strengths and weaknesses
Nervous System) at several processes: memory, attention, visual- determined by scatter
Involvement spatial reasoning.
Exclusionary N/A Student has an average IQ and disability not due to N/A N/A N/A
Criteria lack of instruction or limited English proficiency
N/A Student is friendly and likable. She fits in with N/A N/A N/A
Behavioral
her peers, and at the time, there were no concerns
and Academic
about her social development. Academic screening
Screening
is done in part through the WAIT and CBMs.
1/15/03 Interventions have included Read Naturally, DIBELS benchmarks Interventions Response to intervention,
Appropriate Lindamood Bell, Edmark, and Open Court. and progress are comparing present level of
Learning assessed weekly. performance to goal.
Experiences Interventions are
changed as needed
2003–2005 Parent involvement from initial intervention plan N/A N/A IDEA procedural
on, such as with follow-up meetings, permission to safeguards are given with
Parents’ Role assess using standardized tests, and enrollment in permission to assessment
special education (leading to special
education)
4/29/05 IEP team makes eligibility decisions based on all Collaborative data State criteria To determine specific
evidence. must be met learning disability or
Student is 1.6 times discrepant from peers. for eligibility noncategorical eligibility.
Eligibility Decision
(either SLD or Individual schools
and Professional
noncategor- must apply with the
Judgment
ical). state department of
education to be able to use
noncategorical eligibility.
N/A This student now has an Individual Plan (or N/A N/A N/A
program) with specific goals and objectives. Once
Special Education
these goals have been met, an evaluation will take
Exit Criteria
place through standardized assessments to consider
exit.
See pages 5.57-5.61 for descriptions and reference information for the assessments listed in this table.
Michael is a 7-year-old Caucasian male. He is in chael’s DIBELS scores as well as the cut scores that
second grade and has not been retained. indicate risk.
Tier 1 screening – behavior. No data were col-
Kindergarten (2003 – 2004) lected on behavior.
General Education - Tier 1
During kindergarten, Michael’s general educa- Tier 2
tion (Tier 1) reading instruction consisted of 60 min- Tier 2 interventions. Michael received Tier 2 in-
utes each day, five days a week, with Open Court. terventions in kindergarten. The Title I teacher used
The general education teacher gave reading instruc- Optimize with Michael and four other students for
tion to the whole class and also to small groups. 30 minutes each day, five days a week.
Michael’s group comprised five students, and small- In addition, Michael received small-group in-
group instruction also consisted of Open Court. struction with a classroom associate to work on letter
Tier 1 screening - reading. The school admin- names and sounds for 15 minutes twice each week
istered DIBELS assessments three times each year: and small-group instruction with the classroom as-
in the fall, winter, and spring. Table 5.23 shows Mi- sociate for segmenting sounds, also twice a week.
sible risk. Michael’s goal was to read 50 words per tervention was 31.5 words per minute for nonsense
minutes on these assessments. Follow-up – May 4, word fluency. Michael’s problem was not resolved.
2005: Michael’s mean level of performance after in-
Table 5.25. Michael’s DIBELS Scores for Nonsense Word Fluency—First Grade
Nonsense Reading Fluency Michael’s Scores
Cut Scores
(NWF) (Words per Minute)
1/31 Baseline 28.5 Cut Scores for First-Grade
DIBELS Nonsense Word
2/7 40
Fluency (NWF):
2/4 39
Mid-year
2/22 32
< 30 Deficit
2/28 27 30-50 Emerging
3/7 51
End Of Year
3/14 49 < 30 Deficit
3/21 Spring Break 30-50 Emerging
4/11 38
4/18 43
4/25 49
5/2 44
5/9 33
5/16
5/23 42
5/30
Figure 5.1. Michael’s DIBELS Scores for Nonsense Word Fluency—First Grade
Second Grade (2005–2006) (current year), the school administered DIBELS non-
General Education - Tier 1 sense word fluency (NWF) and oral reading fluency
In second grade, Michael’s general education (ORF) assessments to Michael in the fall (10/24/05).
(Tier 1) reading instruction consisted of 60 minutes These assessments will also be administered in win-
each day, five days a week, with Open Court. The ter (2/13/06) and spring (5/3/06). Michael’s fall
general education teacher gave reading instruction screening scores are shown in Table 5.26.
to a group of 25 students. Tier 1 screening – behavior. No data were col-
Screening. During Michael’s second-grade year lected on behavior.
Table 5.27. Michael’s Second Grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring Scores
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Michael’s Scores Cut Scores
8/29 9 At Risk Fall Cut Scores
< 26 At Risk
9/5 16
26-44 Some Risk
9/12 14 > 44 Low Risk
9/19 16
9/26 12
10/3 29
10/10 30
10/17 12
10/24 21
Figure 5.2. Michael’s Second Grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring Scores
Table 5.28. Michael’s Oral Reading Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency Scores
Michael’s Expected
Date Data Source Discrepancy
Performance Performance
11/21 ORF 21 words read 58 words read – 37
correctly per correctly per
minute minute
11/21 NWF 47 sounds correct 60 sounds correct – 13
per minute per minute
Early Screening Inventory (ESI) (Pearson Early Fox in a Box (CTB/ McGraw-Hill)
Learning) http://www.ctb.com/
http://www.pearsonearlylearning.com/ Fox in a Box is an early literacy assessment that mea-
The Early Screening Inventory-Revised (ESI-R) is sures children’s skills twice yearly from Kindergarten
a reliable and valid developmental screening instru- through Grade 2. It provides diagnostic information
ment that is individually administered to children of selected skills in four learning strands – phonemic
from 3 to 6 years of age to measure development awareness, phonics, reading/oral expression, listen-
in three areas: visual-motor/adaptive, language and ing/writing.
cognition, and gross motor skills. The ESI-P (pre-
school) and ESI-K (kindergarten) identify children Harcourt School Publishers
who may need special education services in order to http://www.harcourt.com/
perform successfully in school. Harcourt School Publishers is an elementary school
publisher that develops, publishes, and markets text-
Earobics (Cognitive Concepts Inc.) books, electronic/online material, and related in-
http://www.earobics.com/ structional materials for school and/or home use.
Earobics, provides early literacy skill training by • The Harcourt Oral Reading Fluency Assessment.
teaching the phonological awareness, listening and Using a subset of questions from Stanford 10 (Read-
introductory phonics skills required for learning to ing and Listening) the Stanford Reading First assess
read and spell. the five essential components of reading as specified
in the Reading First legislation: phonemic aware-
Edmark® (Riverdeep) ness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading flu-
http://www.riverdeep.net/ ency, and reading comprehension strategies.
The Edmark Reading Program is designed for stu- • Harcourt Holistic Assessment Books provides au-
dents with learning or developmental disabilities thentic literature for assessment of students’ applica-
and those who have not succeeded with other read- tion of reading, writing skills and strategies.
ing methods. The Edmark Reading Program uses a
whole-word approach, with short instructional steps, • Harcourt Trophies Intervention includes materi-
consistent repetition, and positive reinforcement to als (Intervention Resource Kits, Readers, Teacher’s
ensure that students experience immediate success. Guides, Practice Books, Skill Cards, etc.) for com-
prehensive teaching support and supplemental in-
struction.
• Harcourt Holistic Assessment uses the DELV to
assess students’ knowledge of speech and language
that are non-contrastive (i.e., common across variet-
ies of American English so they are less likely to lead
to misidentification).
Making Words (A Good Apple Language Arts Ac- QuickReads (Pearson Learning Group’s Modern
tivity Book Series) Curriculum Press)
[Available through a variety of book vendors] http://www.quickreads.org/
Making Words is an innovative word study activity QuickReads are short texts to be read quickly and
introduced by Patricia Cunningham (1991) wherein with meaning. The QuickReads program consists of
students are guided through the process of manipu- three levels: B, C, and D. These texts support auto-
lating a set of letters in sequence to construct words. maticity with the high-frequency words and phonics/
It is used to help readers develop their ability to spell syllabic patterns needed to be a successful reader at a
words and apply this knowledge when decoding. particular grade level.
Part Three
Research Examples
general education classroom three times per week 3. If the student is correct, the computer applauds,
for 17 weeks. They covered 17 different topics in says the fact, and awards a point (5 points = a
48 sessions, and each session lasted 40 minutes. “trinket” for the toy box at the bottom of the
Each session was broken down into the following: screen).
30 minutes of tutor-led instruction and 10 minutes 4. If the student is incorrect, the computer removes
of student use of math software (Math Flash) to en- the incorrect fact, replaces it with the correct
hance automatic retrieval of math facts. fact, and says the fact.
The tutor-led instruction used the concrete-rep- 5. At the end of each session, the computer pro-
resentational-abstract model, which relies on con- vides feedback about the number of facts typed
crete objects to promote conceptual understanding correctly and the highest math fact mastered.
(e.g., base-10 blocks for place value instruction). Each day, the student’s mastery of the topic was
The following 17 math topics and concepts were assessed. If every student in the group achieved
taught: mastery prior to the last day of the topic, the group
• identifying and writing numbers to 99 moved on to the next topic (a few topics required
• identifying more, less, and equal with objects completion of all three days). For mastery assess-
• sequencing numbers ment, students completed worksheets independent-
• using <, >, and = symbols ly, with the percentage of correct answers determin-
• skip counting by 10s, 5s, and 2s ing mastery (for most topics – 90 percent accuracy).
• understanding place value (introduction) After the last day on a topic, the group progressed to
• identifying operations the next topic regardless of mastery status.
• place value (0-50) Fidelity of implementation. Fidelity of imple-
• writing number sentences (story problems) mentation of the tutoring protocol was quantified in
• place value (0-99) the same manner as with the reading study (see page
• addition facts (sums to 18) 5.63) and documented as strong.
• subtraction facts (minuends to 18) Results. At the end of Tier 2 (17 weeks), stu-
• review of addition and subtraction facts dents’ math performance as a function of condition
• place value review (average-study-entry versus low-study-entry control
• 2-digit addition (no regrouping) versus low-study-entry tutor) was assessed. Results
• 2-digit subtraction (no regrouping) showed that tutoring substantially enhanced student
• missing addends performance, with improvement for low-study-en-
Each lesson was scripted for the tutors with de- try tutored students exceeding that of low-study-en-
tailed steps and exact wording of the instructions to try control students. Also, on some measures, the tu-
be provided to the students. On the first day of each tored students’ improvement exceeded that of aver-
topic, the students completed a cumulative review age-study-entry classroom peers. In addition, math
worksheet covering previous topics. disability (MD) prevalence was lower among tutored
The Math Flash software design reflects the students compared to low-study-entry control at the
assumption that active and repeated pairing of the end of first grade and at the end of second grade. As
problem stem with the correct answer in the short- with the reading study, MD prevalence and sever-
term memory establishes the association in long- ity depended on the definition of unresponsiveness
term memory. The facts are organized in families of employed, with some definitions functioning better
increasing difficulty. Once response to a math fact is than others. Cognitive predictors of math outcome
consistently correct, it is moved to a “mastered” set. differed depending on the area of mathematics. For
Cumulative review on mastered facts is provided; other results, see the annotated bibliography at the
if a student responds incorrectly, that fact is moved end of this piece.
out of the mastered set. An example of the process
a student follows as he works with Math Flash is as
follows:
1. Math fact flashes on and disappears from com-
puter screen.
2. Student is prompted to type the fact from short-
term memory.
disabilities in mathematics problem solving at third that the blueprint is but one way to define RTI.
grade. Overviews are provided of Tier 1 general edu-
cation validated math problem-solving instruction Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K.,
and of Tier 2 validated math problem-solving tutor- Bryant, J.D., & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). The preven-
ing procedures. A table highlights important distinc- tion, identification, and cognitive determinants of
tions between what occurs at Tier 1 versus what oc- math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology,
curs at Tier 2. Also, expected reductions in students 97, 493-513.
experiencing serious difficulty with math problem The purposes of this study were to (a) examine the
solving are reported with (a) conventional general efficacy of preventive first-grade tutoring in math-
education instruction in math problem solving (86 ematics; (b) estimate the prevalence and severity of
percent to 100 percent of students fall below the 16th mathematics disability, with and without preventive
percentile), (b) validated math problem-solving in- tutoring and as a function of identification method;
struction at Tier 1 only (29 percent to 54 percent of and (c) explore the pretreatment cognitive charac-
students fall below the 16th percentile), (c) validated teristics associated with mathematics development.
math problem-solving instruction at Tier 2 only (55 Participants were 564 first-graders in 41 classrooms,
percent to 86 percent of students fall below the 16th 127 of whom were designated as at risk (AR) for
percentile), and (d) validated math problem-solving mathematics difficulty and randomly assigned to tu-
instruction at Tiers 1 and Tier 2 (12 percent to 26 per- toring or control conditions. Before treatment, AR
cent of students fall below the 16th percentile). This children and not-AR peers were assessed on cog-
illustrates how two tiers of validated math problem- nitive and academic measures. Tutoring occurred
solving instruction can substantially reduce student three times weekly for 16 weeks; treatment fidelity
difficulty at third grade. was documented; and math outcomes were assessed.
The efficacy of tutoring was supported on computa-
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Implementing re- tion and concepts/applications. Tutoring decreased
sponsiveness-to-intervention to identify learning the prevalence of math disability, with prevalence
disabilities. Perspectives, 32(1), 39-43. and severity varying as a function of identification
To implement responsiveness-to-intervention mod- method and math domain. Attention accounted for
els of learning disabilities identification, schools unique variance in predicting each aspect of end-of-
must make decisions about six procedural dimen- year math performance. Other predictors, depending
sions: how many tiers of intervention to use, how to on the aspect of math performance, were nonverbal
target students for preventive (Tier 2) intervention, problem solving, working memory, and phonologi-
the nature of that preventive (Tier 2) intervention, cal processing.
how to determine whether students have responded
adequately to Tier 2 intervention, the nature of the Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K.,
multidisciplinary evaluation before special educa- Bryant, J. & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). Responsiveness
tion, and the function and design of special educa- to intervention: Preventing and identifying math-
tion. For each of these procedural dimensions, we ematics disability. Teaching Exceptional Children,
describe some options for implementation. Then, 37(4), 60-63.
we offer recommendation for how schools might This article describes research-based procedures for
proceed. We close with two case studies illustrating implementing a three-tiered responsiveness-to-inter-
an RTI process that incorporates our recommended vention system to prevent and identify learning dis-
practices. abilities in mathematics. The system is described at
first grade, with an overview of Tier 2 tutoring proce-
2005 dures. The reduction in students experiencing math
disability (MD) is discussed when validated Tier 2
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Responsiveness-
tutoring is implemented. For example, using one re-
to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, poli- sponsiveness-to-intervention method for designating
cymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Chil- MD, in which students are deemed MD if their final
dren, 38(1), 57-61. achievement on first-grade concepts and applications
The authors define responsiveness to intervention by falls below the 10th percentile, prevalence fell from
specifying a four-step process and distinguish be- 9.75 percent without prevention to 5.14 percent with
tween what they believe are “acceptable practices” Tier 2 tutoring. Assuming 53.3 million school-age
and more desirable “best practices.” They then illus- children, this translates into approximately 2.5 mil-
trate how the process might work by presenting a se- lion fewer children experiencing MD.
ries of four “case studies.” They conclude by making
explicit several of their preferences and emphasize
Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S.R. (2005). Response to in- and local levels; (3) select school districts or school
tervention as a framework for the identification of buildings across the country in which practitioners
learning disabilities. Trainers of School Psycholo- are implementing validated and replicable respon-
gists Forum. siveness-to-intervention (RTI) methods to identify
In this article, a responsiveness-to-intervention ap- students with specific learning disabilities; and (4)
proach to learning disabilities (LD) identification is provide technical assistance and dissemination to a
presented. First, RTI as an LD identification proce- broad array of end users nationally.
dure is explained. Then, the promises and the po- Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004).
tential pitfalls of such an approach are described. Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness
Finally, clarification is provided about how such an
to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria.
approach represents the application of education sci-
ence to practice.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-228.
In this study, we contrasted alternative methods for
McMaster, K.N., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Comp- identifying reading disability (RD) within the con-
ton, D.L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An text of a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) ap-
experimental field trial of identification and inter- proach to identification. The literature suggests four
vention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445- options for classifying response: (1) rate of improve-
ment during tutoring within the top half of tutored
463.
students, (2) performance on a norm-referenced
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy
achievement test within the average range at the
of alternative approaches for providing a second tier
end of tutoring, (3) achieving a criterion-referenced
of intervention with a responsiveness-to-interven-
“benchmark” at the end of tutoring associated with
tion model for preventing and identifying learning
future, (4) demonstrating a strong rate of progress
disabilities. Participants were 232 first-graders who
during tutoring and achieving a strong final score at
were receiving a research-validated form of general
the end of tutoring. For each option, variations on
education reading instruction, Peer-Assisted Learn-
measures and cut-points were considered. We con-
ing Strategies. Children whose improvement over
sidered these four options using data from two RTI
the first semester in response to Tier 1 Peer-Assisted
studies, one at first grade and one at second grade,
Learning Strategies was poor, both in terms of slope
incorporating two criteria for considering the techni-
of improvement during the fall semester and in terms
cal merit of RTI options for designating RD. The first
of end-of-first-semester level, were identified for
criterion was prevalence, with the goal of identifying
Tier 2 intervention. These 56 children were random-
the expected 2 to 5 percent of the population as RD.
ly assigned to remain with unmodified classroom
The second criterion was severity, with the goal of
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, to participate in
identifying children with the largest deficits across
an adapted form of classroom Peer-Assisted Learn-
the greatest range of reading behaviors. In combin-
ing Strategies (which slowed the pace and relied on
ing the criteria, the goal was to identify options that
strong peer tutors), or individual adult tutoring. The
yield the expected proportion of children with the
proportion of nonresponders to Tier 2 intervention
most severe reading difficulties. Findings indicated
suggested that individual adult-directed tutoring was
that options for designating response result in dra-
the most efficacious way of providing Tier 2 inter-
matically different prevalence rates and severity, but
vention.
that a combination of strong slope during tutoring
combined with a strong score at the end of tutoring
2004 may work well. Also, results suggest the potential
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D.D., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). value of focusing on short-term (such as three-week)
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: maintenance immediately after intervention ends to
designate RD.
Multimethod studies of identification and classifica-
tion issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., McMaster, K.L., Yen, L., &
189-195. Svenson, E. (2004). Non-responders: How to find
This paper provides the context for the special issue them? How to help them? What do they mean for
of Learning Disability Quarterly and outlines the Na- special education? Teaching Exceptional Children,
tional Research Center on Learning Disability’s four 36(6), 72-77.
lines of programmatic activities: (1) conduct ran- This piece describes a five-step assessment procedure
domized field trials to explore the relative utility of for classifying children as nonresponders and three
specific identification methods in reading and math; alternative strategies for providing Tier 2 interven-
(2) conduct surveys and focus groups to describe tion for children who are classified as nonresponders
and understand identification practices at the state
5.68 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • www.nrcld.org • August 2006
Section 5: School Examples, Student Case Studies, & Research Examples
to Tier 1. The article summarizes a study in which Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing treatment responsive-
adult tutoring reduced the prevalence of nonresponse ness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning
to Tier 2 by 50 percent, whereas adaptations to the Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172-186.
classroom reading instruction resulted in a reduction Different methods for identifying reading disability
of only 25 percent. Implications for the practice of within the context of a responsiveness-to-interven-
responsiveness-to-intervention for preventing and tion (RTI) approach to identification were explored.
identifying learning disabilities are discussed. We considered (1) rate of improvement in the top
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D. & Compton, D.L. (2004). half of tutored students, (2) performance on a norm-
referenced achievement test within the average range
Monitoring early reading development in first grade:
at the end of tutoring, (3) achieving a criterion-refer-
Word identification fluency versus nonsense word enced benchmark associated with future success at
fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7-21. the end of tutoring, and (4) showing a strong rate of
Response-to-intervention models of learning disabil- progress during tutoring and achieving a strong final
ities identification and prevention require continuing score at the end of tutoring. For each option, varia-
progress monitoring to help determine whether stu- tions on measures and cut-points were considered.
dents are responding to intervention. In this study, The goal was to identify options for designating re-
we examined the technical merits of two contrasting sponse that yield the expected proportion of children
measures for monitoring students’ reading develop- with the most severe reading difficulties. Findings
ment in first grade. The first measure was the widely indicated that options for designating response result
used nonsense word fluency. The other measure was in dramatically different prevalence rates and sever-
curriculum-based measurement’s word identification ity, but that a combination of strong slope during
fluency. At-risk children (n = 151) were assessed (a) tutoring combined with a strong score at the end of
on criterion reading measures in the fall and spring tutoring may work well.
of first grade and (b) on the two progress-monitor-
ing measures each week for seven weeks and twice Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learn-
weekly for an additional 13 weeks. Concurrent and ing disabilities as inadequate response to instruc-
predictive validity for performance level and predic- tion: The promise and potential problems. Learning
tive validity for the slopes of improvement demon- Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
strated the superiority of word identification fluency In this introduction to the special issue, a response-
over nonsense word fluency. Findings are discussed to-instruction approach to learning disabilities (LD)
in terms of the measures’ utility for identifying chil- identification is discussed. Then, an overview of
dren in need of Tier 2 intervention and for monitor- the promise and the potential pitfalls of such an ap-
ing children’s progress through first grade. proach is provided. The potential benefits include
identification of students based on risk rather than
2003 deficit, early identification and instruction, reduction
of identification bias, and linkage of identification
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. assessment with instructional planning. Questions
(2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention for the concern the integrity of the LD concept, the need for
learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities validated interventions and assessment methods, the
Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171. adequacy of response to instruction as the endpoint
Long-standing concern about how learning disabili- in identification, the appropriate instructional inten-
ties (LD) are defined and identified, coupled with sity, the need for adequately trained personnel, and
recent efforts in Washington, D.C., to eliminate IQ- due process. Finally, an overview of the articles con-
achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, have led stituting the special issue is provided.
to serious public discussion about alternative identifi-
cation methods. The most popular of the alternatives
2002
is responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which
there are two basic versions: the “problem-solving” Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (2002). Treat-
model and the “standard-protocol” approach. The ment validity as a unifying construct for identifying
authors describe both types, review empirical evi- learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
dence bearing on their effectiveness and feasibility, 25(1), 33-45.
and conclude that more needs to be understood be- The purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of
fore RTI may be viewed as a valid means of identify- treatment validity as a framework for identifying
ing students with LD. learning disabilities. In 1995, an eligibility assess-
ment process, rooted within a treatment validity
model, was proposed that (a) examines the level of
a student’s performance as well as his or her respon- Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K.R., & Finelli, R.
siveness to instruction, (b) reserves judgment about (2004). Hot Math: A Tier 1 Whole-Class Instruction
the need for special education until the effects of in Mathematics Problem Solving for Use in Third
individual student adaptations in the regular class- Grade within a Response-to-Intervention Program
room have been explored, and (c) prior to placement,
for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabilities
verifies that a special education program enhances
learning. We review the components of this model
(manual). Available from flora.murray@vanderbilt.
and reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of edu.
verifying a special education program’s effective- This manual provides a complete, scripted program
ness prior to placement. for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention
Tier 1 whole-class instruction at third grade in math
problem solving.
Manuals
Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Yen, L., Mc-
Paulsen, K., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L.,
Master, K.L., & Bryant, J.D. (2004). First-Grade
& Bryant, J.D. (2005). First-Grade Tier 2 Tutoring
Tier 2 Tutoring in Reading within a Response-to-In-
in Math within a Response-to-Intervention Program
tervention Program for Preventing and Identifying
for Preventing and Identifying Learning Disabili-
Learning Disabilities: A Manual. Available from
ties: A Manual. Available from flora.murray@van-
flora.murray@vanderbilt.edu.
derbilt.edu. This manual provides a complete, scripted program
This manual provides a complete, scripted program
for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention
for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention
Tier 2 tutoring intervention at first grade in reading.
Tier 2 tutoring intervention at first grade in math.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., & Hollenbeck,
K.N. (2005). Hot Math Tutoring: A Tier 2 Tutoring
Program in Mathematics Problem Solving for Use
in Third Grade within a Response-to-Intervention
Program for Preventing and Identifying Learning
Disabilities (manual). Available from flora.mur-
ray@vanderbilt.edu.
This manual provides a complete, scripted program
for implementing a responsiveness-to-intervention
Tier 2 tutoring intervention at third grade in math
problem solving.
partnering, focus group discussions, collaborative content previously developed by the Vaughn Gross
strategic reading, vocabulary instruction, advanced Center for Reading and Language Arts (VGCRLA)
word study, effective instructional practices, and or- were shared during professional development ses-
ganizing and designing the core reading block. sions. In addition, in kindergarten, the curriculum
Professional development sessions that related included Phonemic Awareness in Young Children
specifically to Tier 2 included phonological/phone- and K-PALS; in first grade, PALS; and in second
mic awareness, letter and sound identification, pho- grade, partner reading.
nics and word recognition, fluency, word reading, Benchmark assessment data (DIBELS) were
sentence/story reading, passage reading, and com- collected at the beginning, middle, and end of the
prehension. year to identify students who needed intervention.
Sessions related to Tier 3 included sound review, Teachers used DIBELS to gather progress-monitor-
phonics and word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, ing data to inform and adjust their reading instruc-
passage reading, and comprehension. tion. After DIBELS assessments, teachers were
Focus groups and coaching. All participating given a bar graph that indicated DIBELS scores for
teachers engaged once a year in focus groups to individual students. Tier 1 coordinators met with
provide feedback about what was helpful and what the teachers and provided instructional recommen-
was difficult with regard to the three-tier model. dations to increase student progress. Teachers also
Researchers also wanted to determine the effective- completed the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)
ness of coaching and in-classroom support for en- for students.
hancing implementation, progress monitoring, and
ultimately student outcomes. Rigorous training and Decision Rules For Tier 2 And Tier 3
reliability procedures were used to prepare three-tier Instruction
project testers. For purposes of research, the kindergartners and
first graders whose response to general education
Tier 1 instruction was not adequate received additional in-
Tier 1 instruction took place in the general edu- struction in Tier 2 from researchers. No student in
cation classroom with the general education teacher. kindergarten or first grade received Tier 3 instruction.
Reading instruction took place for at least 90 min- Students in second and third grade who did not re-
utes each day, was scientifically based, and empha- spond adequately to general education received Tier
sized the five critical elements of reading. Curricu- 3 instruction from researchers. The school provided
lum and instruction in kindergarten through second Tier 2 instruction for second- and third-graders need-
grade included a variety of strategies, and ideas ing that level of instruction. Tables 5.30 and 5.31 de-
based on scientifically based reading research and scribe qualification and exit criteria for Tiers 2 and 3.
cifically designed and customized for small group adequate progress and learning and was based on
(one-to-three) reading instruction. Interventions for the grade level of the students. Phonemic segmenta-
Tier 3 included sound review, phonics and word rec- tion fluency and nonsense word fluency were used
ognition, vocabulary, fluency, passage reading, and in the fall of first grade, and nonsense word fluency
comprehension. and oral reading fluency were used in the spring of
When a student “repeated” or got a “second first grade. Oral reading fluency is used in second
dose” of a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention, the interven- and third grade. At each level of the three-tier mod-
tion was continued with the same intensity, at the el, there was documentation of the individual char-
student’s skill level, with the speed of progression acteristics, background, school experiences, and
being determined by student mastery, as was the outcomes of students who did, and did not, make
case for the first “dose.” adequate progress. (See Table 5.31 on page 5.73 for
Interventions were not scheduled during core qualification and exit criteria for Tier 3.)
reading instruction, and teachers selected the times
for interventions according to times in the classroom Fidelity of Implementation
that they thought students could make up work. Fidelity measures/observations – Tier 1. Fidel-
Personnel. Qualified personnel for Tier 3 were ity of implementation was monitored for all inter-
classroom teachers, reading specialists, or outside ventions. To monitor implementation, the research-
interventionists. In the research treatment, the quali- ers used classroom observations (a strictly passive
fied personnel were graduate research assistants activity for the researcher) and student data. The
and full-time staff hired for tutoring. All had col- researchers reviewed several tools for collecting
lege degrees, some were certified teachers, and all data on teachers’ delivery of reading instruction and
were trained to 100 percent implementation fidelity selected the revised Instructional Content Emphasis
before beginning teaching. Researchers looked for (ICE-R) instrument. This is a valid and reliable ob-
tutors with previous experience teaching and work- servation instrument used to systematically catego-
ing in the schools, knowledge of reading instruction, rize and code the content of reading and language
and a willingness to implement a standard treatment arts instruction and can be used to collect data help-
protocol. ful in answering the following questions: What is
Setting/time/pacing. The setting for Tier 3 in- being taught? How is it being taught? How well is it
struction was always outside the general education being taught? What is being used to teach? Reliabil-
classroom (in pod areas or separate classrooms, for ity checks were done before instructional methods
example). Each group consisted of two or three stu- were used in the schools, and frequent discussions
dents. Tier 3 instruction was nearly always one 50- or between observers ensured that instruction was cod-
60-minute session each day for 100 days (across the ed reliably across observers. During observations,
school year). Students could exit after 50 sessions. Tier 1 coordinators used a checklist of key features
For a couple of groups of students, Tier 3 comprised (the ICE-R). Data from the ICE-R determined fidel-
two sessions each day (30 minutes per session) for ity.
100 days across the school year. Informal classroom observations and visits.
Number of cycles. Students could have a num- School site coordinators visited the teachers in their
ber of Tier 3 intervention cycles. Students in the classrooms on a regular basis and provided follow-
second grade design might have experienced Tier 1 up to the professional development sessions (for ex-
plus Tier 3 in consecutive semesters if the assess- ample, modeling strategies). During informal visits,
ments at the beginning of each semester determined school site coordinators did not complete the ICE-R
that they were eligible. and were able to be actively involved (for example,
A student who had received previous Tier 3 modeling a lesson). Informal visits usually lasted
instruction and had exited could re-enter Tier 3 as only 15 to 30 minutes. Field notes or short observa-
needed. Students could exit from Tier 3 intervention tion checklists were completed after each informal
during the middle of the school year only if they observation. Data collected during these visits were
demonstrated grade-level performance on oral read- then compiled with the ICE-R data to create a com-
ing fluency measures. plete picture of the instruction each teacher provided
Progress monitoring. Progress monitoring oc- at Tier I.
curred twice a month on the targeted skill to ensure Classroom observation data were collected
Parent Involvement
Parents were provided information and training
to facilitate active involvement in student reading
development. Researchers planned to inform and
train parents by using an enhanced web site, litera-
cy-related articles in school and district newletters,
and informational workshops at individual schools.
Researchers also considered giving a parent survey.