An MTSS Data System with Inconsistent Measures and Untrained Staff
An elementary school's fall screening results show 22% of students at benchmark, 41% some risk, and 37% at risk on a composite reading measure. The reading specialist has two 30-minute intervention blocks per day, one certified interventionist, and five paraprofessionals who have not been trained in any program. K-2 teachers conduct running records, but each uses a different system; Grade 3 uses a computer program's placement test as its only data. The principal wants to purchase a new computer program advertised to raise scores and use it during intervention blocks. Fourteen students have IEPs, and 20% are English learners. The district requires all schools to use a multi-tiered system of support and to progress monitor at-risk students every two weeks.
1. What is missing from the school's data system, and what should happen before purchasing a new program?
Read the worked answer
The school has a screening result but not a coherent data system. Three problems stand out. First, K-2 running records are not comparable because teachers use different systems, so the school cannot aggregate or compare risk across classrooms. Second, a computer program's placement test is not a valid universal screening or diagnostic measure; it places students within that program and may not reflect general reading skills. Third, the school has no consistent diagnostic or progress-monitoring system, even though the district requires biweekly monitoring for at-risk students.
Before buying a program, the school should establish a valid, reliable universal screener with benchmarks, a diagnostic assessment for students identified as at risk, and a standard progress-monitoring measure with a known metric. The reading specialist should also audit intervention fidelity and staff capacity. A new computer program may be useful, but it cannot substitute for trained adults delivering targeted instruction, and its placement test should not become the school's only data source. The school should pilot any program with a small group, check whether it addresses the identified skill gaps, and ensure it has an adequate progress-monitoring component. For English learners, the team should confirm that screening and diagnostic measures are appropriate and interpret scores alongside language proficiency.
2. Given the resources, how should the school organize Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction?
Read the worked answer
The two 30-minute blocks provide 60 minutes of intervention time. The certified interventionist should teach the highest-need Tier 3 groups, because those students require the most expert decision-making. With two blocks, the interventionist can serve two Tier 3 groups of five to seven students. The five paraprofessionals should not be asked to design instruction, but they can deliver a scripted Tier 2 program after training and with coaching. A realistic start is four Tier 2 groups and two Tier 3 groups, with the interventionist supervising and the reading specialist providing two weeks of training plus weekly observation.
Group students by instructional skill rather than grade level alone. For example, a Grade 2 group working on phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence should not be grouped with Grade 4 students working on multisyllabic decoding. English learners and students with IEPs should be included in groups that match their reading needs, with their documented accommodations and language supports. The principal should not use the computer program as a substitute for adult-led Tier 3 instruction; it can be a practice station, but the interventionist should own the diagnostic and instructional decisions.
3. How should the school progress monitor and decide whether to continue, change, or exit an intervention?
Read the worked answer
Use a brief, standardized curriculum-based measure every two weeks for students at risk, as the district requires. Measure the skill the intervention targets, not just a composite score: for example, phonemic-segmentation fluency for early readers, nonsense-word fluency for decoding, and oral reading fluency with accuracy for upper grades. Keep the passages and administration procedures consistent so growth is comparable.
Set a goal based on the student's baseline and the available benchmark. After four to six data points, compare the student's trend to the goal line. If the trend is at or above the goal, continue and consider whether the student is ready to exit Tier 3 to Tier 2. If the trend is below the goal, first check fidelity, attendance, and group size; if those are adequate, change the intervention. If a student has received a well-implemented intervention for a defined period with no growth, refer for a comprehensive evaluation. Do not exit a student only because the computer program reports mastery; exit decisions should use the progress-monitoring data and a check that the skill transfers to unpracticed text.