Devon: When Is a Tier 2 Response Inadequate?
A 9-year-old fourth grader, Devon, has received Tier 2 small-group reading intervention for 14 weeks. Benchmark data: fall 45 words correct per minute (wcpm), winter 48 wcpm; the goal was 65. Intervention attendance is 90%, but observations show he is pulled for intervention during silent reading and often misses the first 10 minutes. His teacher says he 'just isn't trying.' An initial evaluation referral is on the table. You have CBM data, a standardized reading test score at 85 SS (16th percentile), and classroom work samples. The team meets in one week to decide whether to evaluate for SLD. The school uses a dual-discrepancy model and has a 60-day evaluation timeline. The parent has not requested evaluation but will attend the meeting.
1. What decision should the team make at next week's meeting, and what data should you bring to support it?
Read the worked answer
The team should not yet find Devon eligible for SLD. Bring a graph of Devon's CBM data (fall 45, winter 48 wcpm), the goal line (65), and an estimate of intervention dose. Attendance is 90%, but missing the first 10 minutes of each session is a fidelity problem: if sessions are 30 minutes, he received roughly 20 minutes × 90% attendance, or about 60% of intended exposure. The observed slope is only about 0.2 wcpm per week, well below the goal, but a low slope cannot be interpreted as inadequate response when the intervention was not delivered as designed. Bring observation data on the intervention's instructional quality, group size, and alignment with his assessed skill deficits. Also bring the standardized score (SS 85, 16th percentile) and work samples, but explain that a single standard score does not establish SLD. Recommend a fixed 6–8 week period with full attendance, protected intervention time, and weekly progress monitoring; reconvene with a decision rule (e.g., slope and level). If the parent requests evaluation at any point, the team must respond to that request rather than using RTI to delay.
2. Devon's teacher argues that the low standard score proves SLD and wants to skip further intervention. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the teacher's concern-Devon is clearly struggling-but explain that a standard score of 85 is below average, not by itself proof of a disability. SLD identification requires evidence that the student has a disability and needs special education, not just low achievement. The score could reflect inadequate instruction, missed intervention content, attention, motivation, or language factors. The team should also consider that the standard score has a confidence interval; 85 might range roughly 80–90, overlapping the low-average range. Rather than debate the number, redirect to the decision rule the school uses: dual discrepancy in level and slope after adequate intervention. If the team skips intervention, it loses the chance to distinguish a true disability from an instructional casualty. Offer a compromise: improve the intervention now, monitor weekly, and set a firm reconvene date. If the teacher still believes a disability is present, document the concern and consider a comprehensive evaluation that includes cognitive and processing measures-but do not pretend the standard score alone settles the question. The parent's input and consent are also required.
3. If the team delays evaluation to improve intervention, what legal and ethical safeguards must be in place?
Read the worked answer
A delay is permissible only as a data-gathering step, not as a way to avoid evaluation. First, the team should document the reason for the delay: inadequate intervention fidelity and dose, not a desire to postpone special education. Second, provide the parents with written notice of the team's decision and a copy of procedural safeguards, in their language. Third, set a specific date for reconvening (e.g., 8 weeks) and a decision rule in advance, so the process does not drift. Fourth, if the parent requests an evaluation at any time, the school must treat that as a formal referral and respond within the timeline; it cannot require the parent to wait for RTI. Fifth, continue progress monitoring and ensure the intervention is delivered with fidelity; otherwise the delay is harmful and legally vulnerable. Ethically, the psychologist should avoid confirmation bias-looking only for data that support SLD-and should consider alternative explanations. Finally, document all team decisions, parent contacts, and the data reviewed. If the team later finds that Devon did not respond despite adequate intervention, it should proceed promptly to evaluation.