Search

Most states are using a multi -tiered system of supports (MTSS) or response to intervention (RTI) framework for improving the quality of instruction for all students and addressing the needs of students at risk for poor learning outcomes. Supporting educators in using tools to calibrate their MTSS/RTI implementation to the state's expected practices is one way states can help districts and schools acquire and use data to improve MTSS/RTI implementation. This report describes the features of 31 tools that 21 states developed or adapted to assess key MTSS/RTI practices that are informed by the research literature. Most tools assessed broad practices for implementing MTSS/RTI, such as whether schools administer assessments for students in need of intervention. Fewer tools assessed more specific practices for implementing MTSS/RTI, such as whether schools are expected to administer universal screening twice a year with all students. The findings can serve as a resource for state education officials who are interested in selecting or adapting a tool to assess MTSS/RTI implementation and in learning how other states support districts and schools in using these tools. [For the appendixes, see ED603785; for the snapshot, see ED603788.]

This white paper offers an approach for using a theory of action as an outline to develop the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Phase II evaluation questions and plan that will guide the SSIP work in Phase III and beyond. Key areas of focus include generating evaluation questions at each level of outcomes, identifying essential steps and checkpoints when implementing identified improvement strategies, and creating evaluation questions for determining the degree to which each step in the process is achieved. The paper describes the relationship between SSIP Phases I and II and explains three types of performance indicators of progress linked to a hierarchy of outcomes, including short-term outcomes that measure participation, reaction, and learning outcomes; intermediate outcomes that measure action outcomes; and long-term outcomes that measure the desired results.

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a framework for collecting and using data to match students to interventions of varying intensity. This study examines the implementation of RtI in Grade 1-3 reading in 13 states during the 2011-12 school year, focusing on 146 schools that were experienced with RtI. Full implementation of the RtI framework in Grade 1-3 reading was reported by 86 percent of the experienced schools. Fifty-five percent of these schools focused reading intervention services on Grade 1 students reading below grade level, while 45 percent of the schools also provided reading intervention services for Grade 1 students reading at or above grade level. Students who scored just below school-determined benchmarks on fall screening tests, and who were assigned to interventions for struggling readers, had lower spring reading scores in Grade 1 than students just above the threshold for intervention. In Grades 2 and 3, there were no statistically significant impacts of interventions for struggling readers on the spring reading scores of students just below the threshold for intervention. [Presented in this report is the executive summary of the study. For the full report "Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading. NCEE 2016-4000," see ED560820.]

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a framework for collecting and using data to match students to interventions of varying intensity. This study examines the implementation of RtI in Grade 1-3 reading in 13 states during the 2011-12 school year, focusing on 146 schools that were experienced with RtI. Full implementation of the RtI framework in Grade 1-3 reading was reported by 86 percent of the experienced schools. Fifty-five percent of these schools focused reading intervention services on Grade 1 students reading below grade level, while 45 percent of the schools also provided reading intervention services for Grade 1 students reading at or above grade level. Students who scored just below school-determined benchmarks on fall screening tests, and who were assigned to interventions for struggling readers, had lower spring reading scores in Grade 1 than students just above the threshold for intervention. In Grades 2 and 3, there were no statistically significant impacts of interventions for struggling readers on the spring reading scores of students just below the threshold for intervention. The following are appended: (1) Members of the Technical Working Group; (2) Data Collection; (3) Survey Sample Definition, Coding, and Analysis; (4) Schools' Decision Rules and Data Used for the Impact Analysis; (5) Estimation Methods; (6) Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design; (7) Sensitivity of the Main Impact Findings; and (8) Exploratory Analyses. [For the executive summary to this report, see ED560821.]

This randomized controlled study examines the effects of an intervention, Fusion Reading, on the reading achievement and motivation of adolescent struggling readers. Fusion Reading was implemented in grades 6 through 10 in four middle schools and three high schools from three districts in the southeast and western Michigan. Eligible struggling readers were assigned randomly to the Fusion Reading intervention or a "business as usual" control condition which did not include additional reading instruction. Intervention students received the multicomponent, strategy-based Fusion reading intervention from trained teachers for one class period, 5 days a week, for a school year. Results indicated a statistically significant impact for the intervention on the Sight Word Efficiency subtest of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), with an effect size (Glass ?) of 0.11. Results are discussed in the context of previous reading intervention research findings with adolescents.

This study estimates the effect of one year of Fusion Reading implementation, a multistrategy intervention, builds on the work of the Strategic Instruction Model's Learning Strategies Curriculum and Xtreme Reading by integrating some of the same strategies (e.g., paraphrasing, visual imagery, and self-questioning for information acquisition; mnemonics for information study; and writing and error monitoring for information expression), focusing on reading, and extending the time frame from 1 to 2 years in duration. Specifically, the study addressed the following: (1) What are the intent-to-treat impacts of the Fusion Reading intervention on the reading outcomes and motivation to read of struggling readers after receipt of 1 year of the intervention?; (2) For which students are the interventions most and least effective?; and (3) In what ways are implementation factors associated with impacts (or lack of impacts) on reading and motivation outcomes? The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial to estimate the effect of Fusion Reading on struggling readers in grades 6 through 10. Students in the intervention condition received the Fusion Reading intervention as a supplemental reading intervention in the 2010-11 school year, whereas students in the control condition engaged in nonliteracy, "business-as-usual" activities. After one year of implementation of a two year intervention, the authors learned that when vocabulary, paraphrasing and word study strategies are explicitly taught by following a specific instructional routine supported by motivation strategies (e.g., setting goals and reading text relevant for the age group), word reading outcomes will significantly improve compared to control middle and high school students. Future research is needed to fully understand whether the intended two year intervention will improve struggling adolescent's reading comprehension outcomes. Appended are: (1) References; and (2) Tables and Figures. (Contains 2 figures and 5 tables.)

This report summarizes findings from case studies that explored the implementation of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and how it affects school district progress toward addressing the behavioral needs of students. Results are also presented on the progress districts are making on: developing accountability systems to report on the performance of children with disabilities in general scholastic activities and assessments; increasing the participation of parents in the education of their children with disabilities; providing for the participation of children with disabilities in the general curriculum; easing early childhood and secondary transitions; and preventing dropouts. Seventeen districts were visited in five states. Findings indicate there were three categories of school districts. Category 1 districts took a reactive approach to behavior management that emphasized disciplinary procedures specified by IDEA. These school districts had medium to high percentages of students who were minorities and received free and reduced lunches. Category 2 school districts shared the characteristics of Categories 1 and 3. Category 3 school districts described a comprehensive range of formal policies governing the prevention and management of behavior problems. Positive behavior support and behavioral Individualized Education Program goals were consistently available. These districts tended to be small and virtually all were in suburban areas. (Contains 19 references.) (CR)