When Progress Monitoring Shows an Intervention Isn't Working
A second-grade student, Priya, receives Tier 2 reading intervention in a response-to-intervention framework. Her IEP goal is to read 60 correct words per minute on grade-level passages by year's end. Baseline was 22 wpm. After 10 weeks of daily 20-minute intervention, her weekly probes read: 24, 23, 25, 24, 26, 25, 27, 26, 25, 24. The aim line required roughly 30 wpm by week 10. The interventionist wants to continue unchanged for another 10 weeks because "she likes the program and her attitude is good." The IEP annual review is in three weeks. Priya's parents ask whether she is making progress.
1. Interpret the progress-monitoring data and recommend what the team should do before the annual review.
Read the worked answer
The data show flat progress well below the aim line. Ten weeks of probes hover between 23 and 27 wpm-essentially no upward trend-while the goal trajectory required about 30 wpm by week 10. Continuing the same intervention unchanged for another 10 weeks is not defensible; the data indicate the current approach is not working for Priya.
The team should:
- Review implementation fidelity (is the intervention being delivered as designed, daily, for the full time?).
- Analyze the error pattern (decoding vs. fluency vs. comprehension) to determine whether the intervention targets the right skill.
- Change the intervention-adjust intensity, group size, instructional focus, or approach-and set a new, data-based decision point (e.g., 6–8 weeks) rather than waiting another full cycle.
- Bring the data to the annual review and consider whether the IEP goal, services, or placement need revision.
Good attitude is not evidence of academic progress; the team must respond to the trend line.
2. How should the team communicate this to Priya's parents, and what should they say about the IEP goal?
Read the worked answer
Communicate honestly and concretely, using the graph and probe data rather than jargon. The message: Priya is working hard and her engagement is a strength, but her reading rate has stayed essentially flat for 10 weeks, which tells us the current intervention is not yet effective for her. That is information about our instruction, not about Priya's effort.
Regarding the goal: the team should not simply lower the goal to make the data look better. Instead, explain that the goal remains the standard, and the team will change the intervention and monitor more closely to give her a better chance of reaching it. If, after a genuine change and adequate time, the data still show the goal is not realistic, the team can revisit it with the parents-documenting the rationale. Parents should leave understanding what will change, when progress will be reviewed, and how they will be kept informed.