# data[].attributes.body
In this 90 minute session, Sarah Brown and Stephanie Stollar, provide an overview of the themes in Part 3 and answer questions from educators and school leaders.

# data[].attributes.body
In this 90 minute session, Sarah Brown and Stephanie Stollar, provide an overview of the key themes in Part 2 and answer questions from educators and school leaders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2025 TRL Summer Book Study: Part 2 Q & A

# data[].attributes.body
In this 90 minute session, Sarah Brown and Stephanie Stollar, provide an overview of the key themes in Part 1 and answer questions from educators and school leaders.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Practice Guide to Supporting Implementation from the National Implementation Research Network

# data[].attributes.subject
A Practice Guide to Supporting Implementation from the National Implementation Research Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Practice Guide to Supporting Implementation – NIRN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author(s): Allison Metz, Katie Burke, Bianca Albers, Laura Louison, and Leah Bartley

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/SQFsfIgFx_8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pacing Guide: MTSS for Reading Improvement 2025 Summer Book Study

# data[].attributes.headline
Reproducibles from MTSS for Reading Improvement

# data[].attributes.subject
Reproducibles from MTSS for Reading Improvement

# data[].attributes.body
Click here for all of the team activities, reflection tools, team agendas, and data protocols from the appendices of MTSS for Reading Improvement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the leading K-12 education companies, Solution Tree offers professional development, online courses, and education books for teachers. Solution Tree works to raise student achievement and performance by providing customizable tools and strategies that empower educators and further teacher education. Solution Tree conferences, workshops, events, and other training for teachers focus on topics such as professional learning communities (PLCs), response to intervention (RTI), and assessment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The principal’s role in using MTSS to improve reading outcomes - with Sharon Dunn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TRT Podcast #213: The principal’s role in using MTSS to improve reading outcomes - with Sharon Dunn Sharon Dunn, a former principal of a high-poverty school, shares the process that she and her staff used

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Much of our knowledge of the components of MTSS and their successful implementation is based on experiences in elementary schools. However, given the structural and organizational differences between elementary schools and secondary schools, this evidence has its limitations when implementing MTSS at higher grade levels. The essential components of MTSS may be the same, regardless of grade level or context, but how they are translated into effective practice and integrated into a middle or high school's processes may differ from elementary school models.

Implementing an early warning system to identify students who may be at risk for poor educational outcomes and providing targeted supports is one way that secondary schools may consider implementing MTSS. AIR's Early Warning Intervention and Monitoring System (EWIMS) is an evidence-based process for identifying and monitoring students who are likely to miss key education milestones and provide supports to help get them back on track (Faria et al., 2017). It is important to emphasize that students are not identified based on their demographics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, status as an English learner) or other unchangeable factors (e.g., students with disability, socioeconomic status, member of a single-parent household). Rather, students are identified for demonstrating one or more mutable early warning indicators (e.g., attendance rate, inappropriate behaviors, or poor course performance).

EWIMS is a systematic approach used by dedicated teams of school staff to identify students displaying symptoms of at risk of not graduating on time, assign students to interventions, and monitor their progress. Schools use data every day-the challenge is to turn the data into meaningful actions and positive student outcomes. By following the 7 steps of the EWIMS process, educators can turn their data into action. The EWIMS process helps educators in early identification of students who are not on track for on-time high school graduation, postsecondary readiness, or other milestones, and then guides educators through evidence-based steps to get those students back on track. By acting early, and then continuously gauging and fine-tuning support, educators following the EWIMS process can efficiently help more students succeed.

Step 1-Establish roles and responsibilities. Schools establish a team to lead and carry out the EWIMS process, determine the frequency and duration of meetings, and develop a shared vision for the team's work.

Step 2-Use the tool. The EWIMS team uses the tool to update lists of available interventions and strategies to support students and run automated or customized reports.

Step 3-Review the early warning data. The EWIMS team focuses their attention on student- and school-level data, using a combination of research-based and locally validated indicators available in the tool. This data review process is intended to identify areas of focus and further investigation and this step is revisited any time new data become available.

Step 4-Interpret the early warning data. The EWIMS team seeks out additional data (besides the indicators) to better understand the needs of individual students or groups of students. This step focuses on the underlying causes that might lead students to be identified as at risk on one or more indicators, using additional formal data (administrative records) and informal input (from teachers, family, and students).

Step 5-Assign and provide interventions. The EWIMS team members make decisions about assigning individual students to specific interventions in the school, district, and community. The EWIMS model does not prescribe specific interventions for schools to implement. Rather, the model provides schools flexibility to decide which interventions are best suited to their students' needs.

Step 6-Monitor student progress. The EWIMS team examines the student risk indicators on an ongoing basis to monitor the progress of students who have already been assigned to interventions. If students continue to be identified as off track, the team may consider assigning them to different interventions; if some students are no longer at risk, the team may consider ramping down services. Over time, schools may refine their catalog of interventions based on their effectiveness, adding new interventions and dropping those that do not help students get back on track.

Step 7-Evaluate and refine the EWIMS process. Through active and structured reflection, EWIMS team members revise specific strategies or their general approach as needed and determine how best to allocate resources to support at-risk students. This step encourages EWIMS teams to make course corrections to any aspect of implementation.

To learn more about our early warning intervention and monitoring system (EWIMS) process and MTSS, please visit: https://www.air.org/resource/early-warning-systems-education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much of our knowledge of the components of MTSS and their successful implementation is based on experiences in elementary schools. However, given the structural and organizational differences between elementary schools and secondary schools, this evidence has its limitations when implementing MTSS at higher grade levels.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michigan MTSS Technical Assistance Center

# data[].attributes.subject
Michigan MTSS Technical Assistance Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The MiMTSS TA Center and Michigan Department of Education will host the 18th Annual MiMTSS Conference on
November 28 & 29, 2022, at the Lansing Center Learn from national and state-recognized keynote and guest speakers
and connect and share with your fellow educators. Watch for more conference information in the months ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The MiMTSS TA Center and Michigan Department of Education will host the 18th Annual MiMTSS Conference on November 28 & 29, 2022, at the Lansing Center Learn from national and state-recognized keynote and guest speakers and connect and share with your fellow educators. Watch for more conference information in the months ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In September of 2016, OSEP funded three projects focusing on tiered approaches to improving reading and language outcomes for English Learners (ELs). These projects are developing and implementing culturally and linguistically responsive models for multitiered system of supports for ELs, including those with or at risk of having a disability.

Features of these models include:

Appropriate research-based reading instruction and intervention for ELs

Culturally responsive teaching strategies and principles

Professional development and strategic coaching for teachers

Linguistically aligned progress monitoring and screening measures

Data-based educational decision making

Please click on each project to learn more about each model and to access additional resources.

Project ELITE2 is a model demonstration project sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education. The project operates within the Language for Learning Institute of The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin.

The goal of the Project ELITE2 is to develop, implement, and evaluate a multitiered instructional model for English learners in the elementary grades that focuses on language and literacy development. We are one of three model demonstration sites collaborating to optimize educational outcomes for English learners, specifically those with or at risk for having a learning disability.

Through this newly funded cooperative agreement, Project ELITE2 is working with a school district in Central Texas to extend our previous work from ELs in the primary grades to ELs in grades three through five.

Project ELLIPSES is a model demonstration project sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education. The goal of the project is to assess the implementation of multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) focused on culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (CLRT) to meet the needs of English learners and English learners with disabilities in the area of literacy and language development. Project ELLIPSES will provide training and technical assistance to build staff capacity to support MTSSCLRT implementation and high-quality literacy instruction for English learners and English learners with disabilities in grades third through fifth.

Project Lectura para Excelencia y Éxito (Project LEE) is a model demonstration project at Portland State University, sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education. The goal of Project LEE is to improve literacy and language outcomes for ELs in grades 3-5 with or at-risk for being identified with a disability. Within this context, we intend to support schools to use a framework, PLUSS (Sanford, Brown & Turner, 2012), to adapt existing evidence-based interventions for the unique linguistic and cultural needs of ELs. The PLUSS Model provides a replicable model of literacy instruction and intervention through embedding culturally and linguistically appropriate instruction into existing multi-tiered system of supports.

PLUSS stands for:

P: Preteaching language and vocabulary and priming background knowledge
L: Language use and modeling
U: Using visuals and graphic organizers
S: Systematic and explicit instruction
S: Strategic use of native language and culture

As one of three model demonstration sites, Project LEE is collaborating with other projects and the outcomes of this project will be disseminated nationally. Specifically, the goals of our project are to: (1) improve the literacy outcomes for ELs with or at-risk for being identified with a disability, and (2) create a replicable and sustainable model of culturally and linguistically responsive instruction that can be overlaid across all tiers of instructional support within a multi-tiered system of supports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multitiered System of Supports for English Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research-based practices, guides, and tools for Response to Intervention (RTI) with English Learners, the U.S. Department of Education funds model development of MTSS with ELs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ep. 193: Systems to Get Better Reading Results with Stephanie Stollar

# data[].attributes.headline
Practice Guides for Literacy Instruction/Intervention from the Institute of Education Sciences

# data[].attributes.subject
Practice Guides for Literacy Instruction/Intervention from the Institute of Education Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A practice guide is a publication that presents recommendations for educators to address challenges in their classrooms and schools. They are based on reviews of research, the experiences of practitioners, and the expert opinions of a panel of nationally recognized experts.

To search by Topic or Keyword, use the Practice Guide Search.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A practice guide is a publication that presents recommendations for educators to address challenges in their classrooms and schools. They are based on reviews of research, the experiences of practitioners, and the expert opinions of a panel of nationally recognized experts. To search by Topic or Keyword, use the Practice Guide Search.

# data[].attributes.headline
Effective Universal Instruction: 2024 TRL Chapter Network Book Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Effective Universal Instruction: 2024 TRL Chapter Network Book Study

# data[].attributes.body
If your data analysis reveals you need to start with an overhaul of your Tier 1 instruction, this book provides an action-oriented approach to guide you. This Padlet also contains resources and recordings to lead a book study in your school.

# data[].attributes.body
A curated list of resources related to the science of reading for educators, families, school leaders and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Reading League Compass: Providing Direction

The science of reading marketplace is difficult to navigate and digest. It is often full of misinformation that makes educators, educational leaders, and decision-makers vulnerable to implementing practices that are somehow labeled as "science of reading," yet they are not aligned with the scientific evidence base. Thus, The Reading League Compass will provide reliable and understandable guidance for a variety of targeted stakeholders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League Compass provides reliable and understandable guidance about the science of reading for a variety of targeted stakeholders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Universe: All About Reading and Writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore ready-to-use teaching strategies, resources, and concrete answers to common questions about teaching reading and writing -- developed by experts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading by Una Malcolm

# data[].attributes.subject
Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading by Una Malcolm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Add to favorites
Written by Una Malcolm, M.A., OCT
Introduction: Why Assess

Assessment for learning plays a critical role in informing and driving literacy instruction. Nearly all students are capable of learning to read; while specific numbers vary, estimates indicate that approximately 95% of students are capable of learning to read (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Rigorous, systematic, and explicit instruction that addresses the essential components of literacy including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000), is key to allowing all children to reach their full potential. This instruction often referred to as structured literacy, must go hand-in-hand with a comprehensive assessment system to allow educators to adjust instruction to meet the specific needs of students (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Assessment is critical for students with learning disabilities (LDs) in terms of both the prevention of reading difficulties and intervention to remediate skill gaps.

Formative Assessment: Answering Questions

Assessment for learning plays a key role in meeting the needs of all students through the creation of equitable learning environments. Assessment for learning, "is used in making decisions that affect teaching and learning in the short-term future" (Growing Success, 2010, p. 30). Multiple research reviews and meta-analyses have identified that systematic formative assessment has consistent strong, positive effects on student learning (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Black & Wiliam, 2005; Hattie, 2009) across a variety of factors including student age, measurement frequency, and disability status. In essence, assessment for learning allows educators to identify where students are and inform plans to get students where they need to be.

Even within assessment for learning, multiple types of assessments exist. Growing Success (2010) distinguishes between formative and diagnostic assessments but emphasizes that "what matters is how the information is used" (p. 31). Assessment answers questions; different types of assessment tools answer different types of questions. In a Response to Intervention model, assessment purposes include universal screening, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring; all three of these purposes for assessment answer key questions about shaping instructional environments to meet students' needs.

1. Screening - Assessment for Learning

The development of skilled reading is a complex process that hinges on the development and the integration of cognitive and language skills. Many of these skills can be observed and measured well before children receive any formal reading instruction (Catts, 2015). With data indicating that reading trajectories are established early and are very stable (Juel, 1988), it is critical to identify reading difficulties early on in a student's academic career to inform support. Since reading remediation at an earlier age is more effective than later intervention (Lovett et al., 2017), screening plays an important role in preventing early reading difficulties from being exacerbated over time.

All students should be screened with universal screening measures three times per year (Good et al., 2011). These assessments are very brief, standardized measures that quickly and efficiently identify which children are at risk. Standardized assessments are tests that have specific procedures for administration and scoring, perhaps with scripted directions and specific scoring guidelines (Farrall, 2012). Students are assessed on several indicators of early literacy skills appropriate for their age and grade. For example, Kindergarten and grade one students may be screened on phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding, while older students may be screened on oral reading fluency (ORF) and retell for comprehension.

Universal screening measures are widely available and very accessible. Many of the universal screeners currently available are either low-cost or free. Often there can be a fee for training or optional computer data analysis systems, but many of the testing materials are very accessible.

These assessments are technically reliable and valid, and scores are interpreted in relation to a benchmark criterion. Benchmark cutscores are not determined arbitrarily but instead are derived from research; researchers use longitudinal studies to determine what threshold a child must reach to have a strong chance of meeting future reading goals. This means a child's score allows educators to predict future reading performance with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Students who fall at or below the cutscore are at risk and will likely need additional support to allow them to meet future goals. For example, a benchmark cutscore on Acadience Reading assessments is the score needed for a child to have an 80 - 90% probability of meeting successive reading goals (Good et al., 2011). In interpreting a child's score in comparison to a benchmark score, educators can quickly and efficiently assess the level of risk of future reading achievement or difficulty before difficulties emerge or worsen.

Screening allows educators to quickly and easily catch students who are at risk. Screening does not, however, give teachers a full understanding of what the underlying cause of a problem is. Screening is akin to a blood pressure or temperature check at a doctor's office; these are simple, efficient and cost-effective ways to find problems, but abnormalities on these screeners require additional diagnostic testing to decipher what exactly is wrong.

2. Diagnostic Assessment - Assessment for Learning

Diagnostic assessments allow educators to probe deeper into the learning profiles of students in question. For many students, universal screening three times per year provides all the assessment data necessary to ensure students are making sufficient progress. For students who are at risk, though, careful analysis of reading subskills must occur to differentiate instruction and plan intervention. These assessments allow educators to ascertain which specific skills or knowledge a student has mastered, and which skills or knowledge need to be taught.

If universal screeners are similar to a blood pressure or temperature check to identify problems in a brief and cost-effective manner, diagnostic assessments are similar to more comprehensive blood tests or diagnostic imaging to dig deeper into a problem. The information from these more investigative approaches directly informs treatment, similar to how diagnostic reading assessments allow teachers to differentiate classroom instruction or plan targeted interventions.

Diagnostic assessments are longer and more in-depth than screening assessments and are typically not standardized. While screeners are quick assessments of indicators of basic skills, diagnostic assessments can be thought of as inventories of skills that directly inform instruction. Can a child segment two, three, or four phoneme words? Can a child decode words with short vowels or consonant digraphs? Diagnostic assessments allow teachers to differentiate classroom instruction and plan intervention if necessary.

Diagnostic assessments should be selected strategically. The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) indicates that reading comprehension, the end goal of reading, is a product of two sets of subskills, word recognition and language comprehension. When selecting diagnostic assessments, teachers can probe both areas of this model to clarify a student's specific patterns of strengths and needs. When weaknesses exist in reading comprehension, is this due to difficulties with word recognition, with language comprehension, or with both?

3. Progress Monitoring - Assessment for Learning

With screening and diagnostic data in hand, teachers can differentiate core instruction and/or provide targeted intervention through intervention supports. Progress monitoring assessments allow educators to quickly measure a student's response to instruction. Instead of waiting until the next benchmark assessment several months in the future, progress monitoring allows for more rapid adjustment of instruction. While universal screening measures students' skill level with grade-level material, progress monitoring is at an individual child's instructional level to directly measure response to instruction. A grade four child reading at a grade one level would be screened at the beginning, middle, and end of the year with grade four assessments. Progress monitoring assessment, though, would be at a grade one level in order to measure the child's response to intervention.

Many universal screeners also supply progress monitoring materials. These materials are often very similar to universal screening measures in that they are brief and standardized. When selecting an assessment for progress monitoring, it is important to consider practice effects. Progress monitoring assessments typically have multiple forms so students are not tested with the same material. Progress monitoring data are usually graphed so student growth can be compared visually to an aimline, or the line between a child's current score and the benchmark goal.

Progress monitoring assessments are purposefully brief. Depending on student age and needs, this assessment may take between one and three minutes. Struggling students need to catch up quickly; Torgesen (2004) describes the "devastating downward spiral" that occurs when students do not receive timely, evidence-based intervention. Struggling readers do not have time for a "wait and see" approach. Weekly or biweekly progress monitoring allows for enough data to quickly and clearly establish patterns. Educators can quickly judge if a child's rate of progress is strong enough to meet the goal. If not, there are several options that can be considered to intensify instruction:

Increasing frequency or length of support

Decreasing group size

Making groups more homogeneous

Increasing level of explicitness

Increasing opportunities for practice

To see an example of how the Thunder Bay Catholic DSB uses tier 1, 2 and 3 reading interventions, click here to view the LD@school video The Tiered Approach

In addition to informing instruction, progress monitoring data allow for insight into students learning profiles. Research indicates that data from a child's response to intervention can give important insight into whether a child may have a learning disability. Patterns of inadequate response to evidence-based instruction, established through progress monitoring data, are key factors to consider when evaluating for a learning disability (Miciak & Fletcher, 2020; Catts & Petscher, 2021).

4. Outcome Evaluation - Assessment of Learning

Outcome assessments measure student achievement. While progress monitoring assessments show if instruction is working, outcome assessments are assessments of learning and identify if instruction worked.

These assessments are typically comprehensive assessments that measure student mastery of provincial curriculum expectations or the specific learning goals outlined. Outcome assessments often occur at the end of a period of learning, including a unit of study, a term, or a school year, for example.
Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading: Cheat sheet - Comparing and Contrasting Assessment Purposes Click here to view and download the Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading: Cheat sheet
Assessment Data and Differentiating Tier 1 Instruction

Patterns in universal screening data can support teachers in differentiating classroom instruction. Instead of using student reading levels from a running record to group students for small group instruction, universal screening data allows educators to use reading skills to more specifically build homogeneous groups of students for instruction. A grade 2 teacher, for example, could split students into several groups based on their universal screening data:

Fluent and accurate readers needing continued content and vocabulary instruction to build comprehension

Students who read accurately but need fluency instruction

Students in need of word-level decoding and phonics instruction.

Data from screeners as well as diagnostic testing for deeper probing allows for more sophisticated and specific differentiation for intervention, instruction, or enrichment since it focuses on specific skills instead of generic reading levels.

Student vs. System Analysis to Strengthen Universal Instruction

One of the strengths of universal screening is it allows educators to analyze not only individual students' growth but also the strength of classroom core instruction. If more than 20% of students are below the benchmark on universal screening, it is a clear indication that efforts to strengthen core instruction should be made. Prioritizing intervention when a large proportion of the class is at risk misses out on a valuable opportunity to strengthen the universal tier of classroom instruction. With class-wide screening data, teachers are able to better differentiate instruction and potentially implement class-wide interventions, such as Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (McMaster & Fuchs, 2016). For example, a grade 3 teacher could implement a paired repeated reading instructional routine (Stevens et al., 2017) in response to weak fluency screening data. Instead of just problem-solving at individual student levels, teachers have the data necessary to develop action plans to strengthen core instruction for all students.

To learn more about Peer Assisted Learning, click here to access LD@school's article and video Peer-Mediated Learning Approaches.

Oral Reading Fluency and Running Records: Frequently Confused

Oral Reading Fluency assessments are commonly used in both screening and progress monitoring for developing readers. While individual assessments vary, generally Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) measures involve timed passage oral reading for one minute. Accuracy rates and words correct per minute scores are calculated and interpreted in relation to a benchmark score. ORF assessments are highly correlated with reading comprehension (Fuchs et al., 2001) and serve as a proxy for this critical outcome skill.

ORF assessments are often confused with running record assessments that are commonly used in literacy programs. While both assessments do involve the reading of connected passages, running records differ in that a text "level" is often indicated as a student's instructional or independent level based on the accuracy percentage. Fluency is typically assessed through teacher observation or rubrics. Running records do not meet desired characteristics for the selection of a screener. They do not act as brief, reliable and valid indicators of key early literacy skills, and they do not allow for interpretation of scores in relation to a benchmark criterion derived from predictive probabilities. In fact, Parker et al. (2015) found that a commonly used running record assessment had a .54 correlation with a district-provided criterion reading test. These data indicate that running records were only 54% accurate in predicting student reading performance, in comparison to the established technical validity and reliability of ORF measures.

Assessment for Learning: A Case Study
The following case study provides an example of how reading assessment can be used in the classroom to identify at-risk students, pinpoint the skills these students struggle with, and determine the appropriate intervention to get students back on track.
Maya is in grade two. As a part of the beginning-of-year screening process, her teacher administers a brief screening assessment that yields this data about Maya's reading:
Nonsense Word Fluency: Oral Reading Fluency:

Accuracy (passage reading accuracy): Below Benchmark

Words Correct (passage reading fluency): Well Below Benchmark

Maya's teacher, Ms. Kaur, recognizes that Maya is struggling and is not on track to meet future reading goals. Ms. Kaur realizes that Maya is having difficulty reading the ORF passage accurately and smoothly since she is not an accurate and fluent word reader. Based on these screening data, she decides to dig deeper with some diagnostic assessments to help her differentiate instruction. She decides to give Maya a decoding assessment to understand which specific phonics patterns she has mastered, and which patterns she needs to be taught. She learns that Maya hasn't yet mastered short vowel sounds. She also uses a phonemic awareness assessment to check her blending and segmenting, which shows skill gaps as well. Ms. Kaur realizes that Maya is having difficulty with word recognition skills. To check on her oral language skills, Ms. Kaur reads a story to Maya and asks her oral comprehension questions. Maya is easily able to answer questions about what she hears, indicating to Ms. Kaur that Maya's reading difficulties appear to be stemming from decoding and word recognition difficulties and not language comprehension difficulties.

Armed with this information, Ms. Kaur builds her small reading groups. Instead of using reading levels to group students, Ms. Kaur uses reading skills. She groups Maya with other students needing phonemic awareness and short vowel instruction.

As Ms. Kaur uses this screening and diagnostic data to plan her groups and instruction, she also continues to monitor Maya's progress using weekly Nonsense Word Fluency assessments. Since these progress monitoring assessments are one minute each, Ms. Kaur knows that this is a quick and efficient way to make sure Maya is responding to her instruction without having to wait until the mid-year screening time. If Maya is not making sufficient progress toward the benchmark score, she may need instruction to be intensified to allow her to reach the benchmark goal. Ms. Kaur graphs Maya's progress monitoring data, as well as the aimline which shows the path between Maya's current score and the benchmark. Ms. Kaur and her grade-level team can quickly and easily judge if Maya is progressing at a fast enough rate to close the gap.

About the author:

Una Malcolm is a doctoral student in Reading Science and also has a Master's degree in Child Study and Education. She is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Una has trained extensively in several evidence-based teaching methods, such as Direct Instruction, Phono-Graphix and Lindamood-Bell. She is an Acadience Reading K-6 (formerly DIBELS Next) Mentor.

References

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7 - 74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102

Catts, H.W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., Liu, Y. S., & Bontempo, D. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 281-297.

Catts, H.W., Petscher, Y. (2021). A cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, doi.org/10.1177/00222194211037062

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Farrall, M. L. (2012). Reading assessment: Linking language, literacy, and cognition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118092668

Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199 - 208.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239 - 256.

Fletcher, J.M. & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30 - 37. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x

Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Cummings, K.D., Dufour-Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powell-Smith, K.A., Stollar, S. & Wallin, J. (2011). Acadience Reading K-6 Assessment Manual. Acadience Learning Inc.

Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6 - 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437 - 447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437

Lovett, M., Frijters, J.C., Wolf, M., Steinback, K.A., Sevcik, R.A., Morris, R.D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilties: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889 - 914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181

McMaster, K. L., & Fuchs, D. (2016). Classwide intervention using peer-assisted learning strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 253-268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_15

Miciak, J. & Fletcher, J.M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343 - 353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420906801

Ontario Ministry of Education. ​​(2010). Growing Success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario's schools: Covering grades 1 to 12. Ministry of Education.

Parker, D.C., Zaslofsky, A.F., Burns, M.K., Kanive, R., Hodgson, J., Scholin, S.E. & Klingbeil, D.A. (2015) A brief report of the diagnostic accuracy of oral reading fluency and reading inventory levels for reading failure risk among second and third grade students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(1), 56 - 67. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2013.857970

Spear-Swerling, L. (2018). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201-211.

Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with Learning Disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(5), 576-590. doi: 10.1177/0022219416638028

Torgesen, J.K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early intervention prevents reading failure. American Educator, 28, 6-19.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Written by Una Malcolm, M.A., OCT Introduction: Why Assess Assessment for learning plays a critical role in informing and driving literacy instruction. Nearly all students are capable of learning to read; while specific numbers vary, estimates indicate that approximately 95% of students are capable of learning to read (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).

# data[].attributes.headline
PaTTAN Literacy Video Archives (Pennsylvania Training & Technical Assistance Network)

# data[].attributes.subject
PaTTAN Literacy Video Archives (Pennsylvania Training & Technical Assistance Network)

# data[].attributes.headline
National Center on Intensive Intervention

# data[].attributes.subject
National Center on Intensive Intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explore all

Educators

Find tools and resources to support general and special education teachers, interventionists, school psychologists, school counselors, and other school-based personnel working with students with intensive academic and behavioral needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore all Find tools and resources to support general and special education teachers, interventionists, school psychologists, school counselors, and other school-based personnel working with students with intensive academic and behavioral needs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Connect with your chapter of The Reading League!

# data[].attributes.subject
Connect with your chapter of The Reading League!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League’s purpose is to increase knowledge of science-based approaches to teach reading. Join us and become a Chapter today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading proficiency is the ultimate equity outcome. But do principals know which students need help and precisely where to begin?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Reading League’s professional development team offers a variety of customized, flexible knowledge-building sessions and implementation supports.

# data[].attributes.subject
The Reading League’s professional development team offers a variety of customized, flexible knowledge-building sessions and implementation supports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thank you for your interest in working with The Reading League. We appreciate your desire to learn more about what the scientific research evidence base says about reading, and how you can use it to benefit your students. Before entering into a formal long-term professional development relationship with schools, we require a full day with administrators. As building and district leaders, your commitment to increasing your own knowledge is vital to the success of transforming literacy instruction and achievement in your schools. This important day ensures that all leaders have common understandings and send consistent messages. After the Administrator Introduction Day is complete, we hope to collaborate and draft a plan to suit your needs, which may include various professional development options and coaching.
Morning Session: Introduction to The Evidence Base

Activating prior knowledge about reading

The Reading League's origin, mission, and what we do

What does available assessment data say about how we are doing as a nation and locally?

What does the research on teacher knowledge tell us?

What does 40+ years of scientific research on reading tell us? (an overview of the larger ideas, as this takes years to learn deeply)

What are some myths and misconceptions?

Afternoon Session: What It Takes to Transform Literacy Instruction

Data and growth stories from our partnerships: What is possible?

Transformative vs. additive approaches to change

What is it like to work with The Reading League?

What to expect in the transformation process

How to learn more

Discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thank you for your interest in working with The Reading League. We appreciate your desire to learn more about what the scientific research evidence base says about reading, and how you can use it to benefit your students. Before entering into a formal long-term professional development relationship with schools, we require a full day with administrators.

# data[].attributes.headline
Learn more about Sarah Brown's offerings at System Impact Consulting

# data[].attributes.subject
Learn more about Sarah Brown's offerings at System Impact Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MTSS Data Academy - System Impact Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Formerly FAST for Success, the MTSS Data Academy is a research-based program that combines initiatives on MTSS, science of reading (SoR), and team data coaching in one, year-long professional learning program. It uses Implementation Science to drive data-informed reading instruction. And, we coach

# data[].attributes.headline
Learn more about Dr. Stephanie Stollar's work with the Reading Science Academy

# data[].attributes.subject
Learn more about Dr. Stephanie Stollar's work with the Reading Science Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Become a Science of Reading Champion with Our Exclusive Free Resources!

Uncover the power of teaching the Science of Reading with a treasure trove of free resources for educators. You'll supercharge your own understanding and gain the confidence you need to share it with your students, colleagues, and administrators. Grab your free resources now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online community for reading teachers who want to improve reading outcomes by implementing the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stollar - The Top 5 Implementation Errors & How to Correct Them for Better Reading Outcomes

# data[].attributes.subject
Stollar - The Top 5 Implementation Errors & How to Correct Them for Better Reading Outcomes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stollar - The Top 5 Implementation Errors & How to Correct Them for Better Reading Outcomes

# data[].attributes.headline
Click here to order your copy of MTSS for Reading Improvement and start your learning journey! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Click here to order your copy of MTSS for Reading Improvement and start your learning journey! 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pre-order: MTSS for Reading Improvement: A Leader’s Tool Kit for Schoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MTSS for Reading Improvement: A Leader’s Tool Kit for Schoolwide Success by Sarah Brown and Stephanie Stollar We are currently taking pre-orders as this title is set to be released in May 2025. Transform your school’s reading outcomes through systematic implementation of the science of reading within a multitiered syst

# data[].attributes.headline
IES Practice Guide: Reading Intervention for Students in Grades 4-9

# data[].attributes.subject
IES Practice Guide: Reading Intervention for Students in Grades 4-9

# data[].attributes.headline
Using Data to Make Instructional Decisions for Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.subject
Using Data to Make Instructional Decisions for Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Stollar shares in the Part 2 Q&A that this book is a MUST READ for all educators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explicit instruction is systematic, direct, engaging, and success oriented—and has been shown to promote achievement for all students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intensification Strategy Checklist from NCII

# data[].attributes.subject
Intensification Strategy Checklist from NCII

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This checklist can be used by teams to help identify ideas to intensify interventions based on their hypothesis for why the student may not be responding to an intervention. The checklist is aligned with the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity.

Related Resources

Find other data meeting tools.
Data Teaming Tools Clarifying Questions to Create a Hypothesis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This checklist can be used by teams to help identify ideas to intensify interventions based on their hypothesis for why the student may not be responding to an intervention. The checklist is aligned with the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity.

# data[].attributes.headline
OSEP Letter Re: Not delaying or denying special education evaluation due to RtI/MTSS

# data[].attributes.subject
OSEP Letter Re: Not delaying or denying special education evaluation due to RtI/MTSS

# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines from The Reading League

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines from The Reading League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines to evaluate how well a curriculum aligns with the findings from the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.headline
25 Insights from the Authors of MTSS for Reading Improvement

# data[].attributes.subject
25 Insights from the Authors of MTSS for Reading Improvement