When the Tier 2 Data Look Flat
A fourth-grade Tier 2 group of five students receives 30 minutes of scripted fluency intervention three times weekly. Baseline median oral reading fluency (ORF) is 45 words correct per minute. After six weeks, weekly probes read 45, 46, 45, 47, 46, 48, 47, and 49 wpm. The program aim is a slope of 1.5 words per week. A fidelity observation showed 80% of critical components delivered; students missed 3 of 18 sessions. The teacher asks whether to refer the group for special education testing now, noting that the scores are 'flat.' The school uses a four-to-six-week decision cycle before changing Tier 2 supports.
1. Interpret the data. Is the intervention working, and what decision rule should the team apply?
Read the worked answer
The trend is positive but well below the aim. From 45 to 49 wpm across seven intervals is roughly 0.6 words per week, compared with the 1.5-word aim. However, the team should not treat this as a clean test of the intervention: fidelity was 80%, and students missed 3 of 18 sessions. The intervention was not fully delivered.
Use a trend line across all eight points, not the first and last scores or the most recent point. The decision cycle calls for four to six weeks of data; the team has enough points to review, but the first problem to solve is implementation. A referral now would be premature because the team cannot say the students received a validated intervention with adequate fidelity. The decision should be: problem-solve fidelity and attendance, adjust the intervention, and continue monitoring for another four weeks.
2. What changes would you make to the intervention and the data system, and what would trigger a move to Tier 3?
Read the worked answer
First, raise fidelity to at least 90% by coaching the intervenor, checking the schedule, and ensuring all components-modeling, repeated reading, error correction, and timed practice-are delivered. Address attendance with a structured make-up plan. Reduce the group from five to three if possible, or add a fourth session, to increase practice density.
Second, verify the intervention matches the deficit. If the students are accurate but slow at the word level, add word automaticity practice rather than only passage rereading. Keep weekly ORF probes and graph the trend.
Trigger for Tier 3: after four weeks of high-fidelity implementation, a slope still below about 1.0 word per week, or a flat trend with no response, warrants a more intensive Tier 3 intervention and a team problem-solving meeting. A comprehensive evaluation would be considered if the student continues to show insufficient response to intensified, validated intervention.
3. How should the team respond to the teacher's request for special education testing?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the concern but explain that the current data do not yet support a referral as the next step. Special education eligibility depends on evidence of insufficient response to appropriate, validated instruction delivered with fidelity. At 80% fidelity and with missed sessions, the team cannot conclude the students are nonresponsive.
Document the changes made, the fidelity data, attendance, and the progress-monitoring graph. Set a clear review date. If the students still show a low slope after the intensified Tier 3 period, refer for a comprehensive evaluation. This protects students from delay while also preventing an inappropriate referral based on an inadequately delivered intervention.