Allocating a Single Tier 2 Block When Screening Flags Different Skill Deficits
Mr. Alvarez teaches fourth grade at a K–5 school with 26 students. Fall universal screening flagged six students below benchmark on oral reading fluency (ORF): Ana and Dev read 44 and 47 words correct per minute (wcpm) at 97% accuracy; Marcus, Priya, and Lila score near the 40th percentile on ORF but below the 15th on the maze comprehension measure; Kwame is below benchmark on both. The core block is 90 minutes. Mr. Alvarez has one 30-minute Tier 2 block and a paraeducator, and he is the only certified teacher available during that time. The paraeducator has been trained in scripted fluency routines but not in comprehension strategy instruction. Weekly progress-monitoring probes are available.
1. Design the Tier 2 grouping and staffing for the next six weeks and justify each placement. Include what, if anything, you would change in Tier 1.
Read the worked answer
The organizing principle is that the intervention must target the skill the data actually show as deficient, not the label 'below benchmark.' That produces two different instructional problems and two different staffing matches:
- Ana and Dev (accurate but slow): their accuracy rules out a word-level decoding problem; the need is automaticity. A scripted repeated-reading/phrase-cued-fluency routine is exactly what the paraeducator was trained to deliver, and it can be run with a small group using paired and repeated reads with weekly ORF probes.
- Marcus, Priya, and Lila (fluent but weak comprehension): they need teacher-led strategy work - modeling, gradual release, text-based discussion, and retell/summary practice. The paraeducator should not run this group, because the instructional demand is higher than the training supports.
- Kwame (both): he needs the certified teacher, because the teacher is the only person who can judge whether his bottleneck is accuracy or meaning and shift emphasis week to week. Placing him in the fluency-only group would leave his comprehension gap unaddressed.
Tier 1 changes matter because six of 26 students flagged suggests the core is not carrying enough load. I would add brief whole-class fluency practice with connected text and explicit academic-vocabulary support in the core block, so Tier 2 is supplementing rather than compensating. Group membership should be reviewed every three weeks, not locked in for the year.
2. Ana's mother learns that 'the extra help group' meets during the intervention block and asks that Ana join it because Ana 'reads too slowly.' Describe your response and what evidence you would bring to the conversation.
Read the worked answer
The response should honor the parent's observation - Ana genuinely does read slowly - while explaining that the intervention group is not a general help group but a set of matched treatments. The key move is to separate the parent's accurate observation from the inaccurate inference about placement.
I would open by validating the concern and then show two data points side by side: Ana's accuracy (97%) and her comprehension score, which is at or above benchmark. Then explain the logic: the group the parent is picturing is the comprehension group, where the instructional focus is understanding text, and Ana already comprehends well; putting her there would replace instruction in her actual gap. Ana's real need - automaticity - is already being addressed in her current group, and it looks 'slow' partly because fluency growth is measured over weeks, not days.
Evidence to bring: fall screening results, Ana's most recent weekly ORF probes showing the trend line, a sample of her comprehension responses, and the six-week goal. I would also offer concrete home support (paired reading, rereading familiar text aloud) and set a check-in date. If the parent still disagrees, I would document the conversation and route it to the building problem-solving team rather than unilaterally changing a placement to resolve discomfort.
3. State the decision rules you would apply at the six-week review, including what you would do if growth is flat but the intervention was not delivered as designed.
Read the worked answer
Decision rules should be written before the review so the outcome isn't rationalized after the fact. My rules:
- Sufficient response: trend line at or above the aim line and four to six consecutive data points above it - exit to Tier 1 with monitoring every three weeks.
- Emerging response: positive slope but below the aim line - continue with a modest intensification (add a session, increase opportunities to respond, reduce group size) and review in three more weeks.
- No response despite adequate implementation: flat slope with documented fidelity of at least 90% of intended sessions - change the intervention rather than the child, and consider a referral for a full and individual evaluation.
- No response with poor implementation: if session logs show delivery well below design, the correct conclusion is that the intervention was never validly tested. In that case I would fix the logistics and run a clean four-to-six-week trial before any eligibility conversation; concluding 'the student didn't respond' from an intervention that wasn't delivered would be a documentation and compliance error, not a data-based decision.
The subtle judgment in rule 4 is resisting the pull to treat flat data as evidence of disability when the independent variable was never controlled.