Tier 2 Progress Monitoring With Confounded Data

The data support the conclusion that Maya has made very limited growth in oral reading fluency: three words per minute over 12 weeks is far below what would be needed to approach the benchmark of 50. They also support the conclusion that her reading is inaccurate and disfluent, since 88% accuracy and word-by-word reading are consistent with a decoding bottleneck. Her strong listening comprehension suggests that the problem is not general language comprehension. However, the data do not yet support a conclusion that the intervention itself is ineffective, because implementation is confounded. Nine missed sessions is roughly a quarter of the intended dosage, and substitutes may not have delivered the program with fidelity. A defensible interpretation is 'insufficient response under inconsistent implementation,' not 'student needs Tier 3.' The team should not use the flat slope alone to justify a more restrictive placement. It should first document attendance, fidelity, and the specific phonics gap, then decide whether the current intervention is the right match.

The team should keep Maya in Tier 2 but change the intervention to target blends and vowel teams explicitly, and it should build in a period of consistent delivery. That means assigning one trained interventionist, scheduling make-up sessions, and tracking attendance weekly. The team should also add a diagnostic decoding measure and brief weekly progress monitoring rather than waiting another 12 weeks for a fluency score. If Maya receives at least 90% of sessions with fidelity for six to eight weeks and her decoding and fluency slopes remain flat, then Tier 3 is justified. The evidence for later movement should include a clear baseline, a stable intervention period, and a demonstrated lack of response despite appropriate instruction. This decision is defensible because it distinguishes a student need from an implementation problem. Moving to Tier 3 now could be appropriate if the team had evidence of adequate implementation, but it does not. The plan also keeps the classroom comprehension work strong, since Maya's listening comprehension is a relative strength.

He should be specific and avoid blaming language. For example: 'Maya understands stories well when she listens. Her reading is still slow and careful, especially with letter teams like ea and ai. She has missed several intervention sessions, and different teachers have taught the group, so we do not yet have a fair test of whether the program is working. We are going to keep her in the same level of support but make the lessons focus on the letter patterns she needs, keep one teacher, and schedule make-up sessions. In six to eight weeks we will look at her progress again.' He should show one or two examples of her reading and explain what the family can do, such as short daily practice with word cards, without turning home into a test. He should also invite questions about attendance barriers. This communication is defensible because it is accurate about the confounds, avoids promising a specific outcome, and makes the next review concrete.