Using MTSS Data to Plan Comprehension Intervention in Seventh Grade
A seventh-grade MTSS team reviews fall data for 96 students. The universal screener shows 22 students at some risk and 9 at high risk on comprehension. Decoding and fluency are at benchmark for 7 of the 9 high-risk students. The team has one 30-minute intervention block four days per week, two interventionists, and a computer program that targets vocabulary. Teachers report that high-risk students can read aloud accurately but cannot summarize or identify main idea. The school uses standards-based grading, and the next benchmark window is in 10 weeks. One interventionist is certified in reading; the other is a paraprofessional. The team must decide which students receive Tier 2 or Tier 3 support, what intervention to use, and how to monitor progress without pulling students from core ELA instruction.
1. Which students should receive Tier 2 versus Tier 3 support, and what should the intervention focus on?
Read the worked answer
The 9 high-risk students should receive Tier 3 support, and the 22 some-risk students should receive Tier 2 support, but the team should confirm the grouping with a brief diagnostic. Since 7 of the 9 high-risk students decode and read fluently at benchmark, the primary need is comprehension, not phonics. Their ability to read aloud accurately while failing to summarize suggests a breakdown in constructing meaning, monitoring understanding, or recognizing text structure. The 2 high-risk students without benchmark decoding or fluency may need a mixed focus.
Tier 3 should be a smaller, more intensive group led by the certified reading interventionist, with explicit instruction in main idea, summarization, and text structure. Tier 2 can use a structured comprehension routine such as reciprocal teaching, with the paraprofessional delivering a scripted program under supervision. The computer vocabulary program should be a supplement, not the core, because vocabulary practice alone will not teach students to summarize or identify main idea. The 30-minute block should be additional to core ELA, not a replacement.
2. How should the team monitor progress and avoid pulling students from core instruction?
Read the worked answer
The intervention block should be scheduled outside the core ELA period, for example during an advisory or intervention period, so students do not miss grade-level text and discussion. Progress monitoring should use a brief comprehension measure administered weekly or every two weeks, yielding at least six to eight data points before the next benchmark window. The team should set a decision rule in advance: if a student's trend line is flat or declining after four to six weeks, change the intervention rather than waiting ten weeks.
The team should also monitor fidelity: is the intervention delivered four days per week, and is the paraprofessional following the protocol? The certified interventionist should observe and coach. Core ELA teachers should share unit texts and strategies so students can apply comprehension routines in class. Progress monitoring data should not be used to lower grades in standards-based grading; instead, it should inform intervention decisions. The team should communicate with families about the additional support and review the grouping at the next benchmark window.
3. What is the main problem with using the computer program as the primary intervention for these students?
Read the worked answer
The main problem is a mismatch between the assessed need and the program's target. The data show that most high-risk students can decode and read fluently but struggle with comprehension, specifically summarizing and identifying main idea. A vocabulary program may build word knowledge, but it does not necessarily teach students to construct a gist, recognize text structure, or monitor whether they understood a paragraph. Those are the skills the data identify as missing.
A computer program can also be passive and isolated, offering limited transfer to classroom discussion and writing. That does not mean it is useless; it can supplement Tier 2 or Tier 3 instruction for students who need vocabulary support. But the core intervention should be explicit, teacher-led comprehension instruction with modeling, guided practice, and feedback. The team should evaluate the program by asking whether it targets the identified skill, whether it provides corrective feedback, and whether students can apply what they learn to grade-level text.