Pre-referral interventions: what to try and how to document it

By the IEP Atlas editorial teamLast updated November 1, 2026

Short answer

Pre-referral interventions are targeted supports a teacher tries in general education before, or alongside, a special education referral. Good examples are small-group phonics, fact fluency practice, check-in check-out and graphic organizers for writing. Pick one matched to the skill gap, set the minutes per week, probe weekly and write down what happened. The record is what makes the referral decision sound.

A pre-referral intervention is a planned change in instruction for one student or a small group, tried in general education and measured. Most schools run them through an MTSS or RTI process, and many call the team that plans them a student study team or a teacher assistance team.

The intervention itself is only half the work. The other half is the record: what you tried, how often, for how long, and what the data did. That record helps the student now, and it becomes evidence if the team later moves to an evaluation.

What counts as a pre-referral intervention

An intervention is more than good teaching. It has a target skill, a set dose (minutes and days per week), a start date, a progress measure and a review date. "Moved her seat closer to the board" is an accommodation. "Twenty minutes of explicit phonics instruction, four days a week, with a weekly one-minute reading probe" is an intervention.

Screening every student in a class to decide on instruction is not a special education evaluation, and it does not need parent consent for evaluation.^[3] Once a disability is suspected, though, the school cannot use the intervention process to put off an evaluation.^[1] Keep both rules in mind as you plan.

For the larger process these supports feed into, see the IEP evaluation process from referral to eligibility. The glossary entries for RTI and MTSS cover the tiers.

Pre-referral intervention examples by concern

The table pairs common classroom concerns with interventions that target the skill, a typical dose and the measure that shows whether it is working. Doses are typical starting points, not requirements.

Concern	Intervention example	Typical dose	Weekly measure
Slow, inaccurate word reading	Explicit phonics in a group of 3 to 5	20 to 30 min, 4 to 5 days	Words correct per minute on a grade-level passage
Weak phonemic awareness (K to 1)	Oral blending and segmenting drills	10 to 15 min daily	Phonemes segmented correctly in 1 minute
Reading comprehension	Reciprocal teaching or main idea strategy	30 min, 3 days	Questions correct out of 5 on a short passage
Math facts	Timed practice with immediate correction	10 min daily	Digits correct per minute on a mixed probe
Math problem solving	Schema instruction for word problem types	30 min, 3 days	Problems solved out of 6
Written expression	Sentence combining or a planning organizer	20 min, 3 days	Correct word sequences in a 3-minute write
Work completion and attention	Check-in check-out with a point card	Daily, morning and afternoon	Percent of points earned per day
Off-task or disruptive behavior	Behavior-specific praise plus a break card	Every class period	Intervals on task in a 15-minute observation
Language comprehension	Vocabulary preteaching and visual supports	15 min, 3 days	Target words used correctly out of 10

If two concerns overlap, such as reading and behavior during reading, start with the academic intervention. Behavior often settles once the task is within reach. Track both anyway.

How to run and document an intervention

Step 1: Write the concern as a measurable problem

Replace the impression with a number. "Struggles with reading" becomes "reads 41 words correct per minute on grade 3 passages; the class median is 82." Use screening data, a short probe you give yourself, or a work sample scored the same way each time.

Step 2: Match one intervention to the skill gap

A student who decodes poorly needs decoding work, not a comprehension program. A quick error analysis tells you where the breakdown is. Pick one intervention, with materials you can actually use every day, rather than three at once. With three changes at once, you cannot tell which one worked.

Step 3: Set the dose and the schedule

Write the minutes per session, sessions per week, group size and who delivers it. A plan that says "small group as time allows" will drift to twice a week by October. Put the sessions on the schedule like any other class.

Step 4: Pick one progress measure and a goal line

Choose a short, repeatable measure from the table, give it weekly and graph it. Set a target and draw a line from the baseline to the target date. Curriculum-based measurement works well because each probe is the same length and difficulty. The rate of improvement calculation shows how to turn the graph into a growth rate.

Step 5: Record fidelity and attendance

Log each session: date, minutes, attendance and whether the lesson ran as written. If the student missed 9 of 24 sessions, flat data says little about the intervention. Fidelity notes protect the student from a referral based on an intervention that never really happened.

Step 6: Review the data on a set date

Pick the review date when you start, usually 6 to 8 weeks out. Many teams use a decision rule, such as four points in a row below the goal line, to decide when to change course.^[5] At the review, the team has three choices: continue, change the intervention, or refer for an evaluation.

Worked example: one student, eight weeks

Jonah is a fictional third grader. On the fall screening on September 10, he read 41 words correct per minute (WCPM) on a grade 3 passage. The class median was 82. His errors were mostly vowel teams and two-syllable words.

His teacher wrote the plan on September 15:

Intervention: explicit phonics on vowel teams and syllable division, in a group of 4
Dose: 25 minutes, 4 days a week, delivered by the reading interventionist
Measure: one grade 3 oral reading fluency probe every Friday, scored as WCPM
Goal: 53 WCPM by November 14, a growth of 1.5 words per week
Review date: November 17

The weekly probes came in at 42, 44, 43, 46, 45, 47, 46 and 48 WCPM. Jonah attended 30 of 32 sessions. The fidelity log showed every lesson ran as planned.

Over 8 weeks, he gained about 7 words, close to 0.9 words per week. His goal line called for 1.5. The last four points (45, 47, 46, 48) all sat below the goal line for those weeks. Jonah was improving, but not at a rate that would close the gap.

The team met on November 17. With good attendance and fidelity, the slow growth pointed to something more than a lack of instruction. They decided to refer him for an evaluation and sent the parent a consent form that week. The eight weeks of data went into the referral packet. This illustration uses invented numbers; your benchmarks and decision rules come from your district.

Common mistakes

Weak: "Tried small group support. Not working." Better: "Phonics group, 25 min, 4 days a week, Sept 15 to Nov 14. Attended 30 of 32 sessions. Growth 0.9 WCPM per week against a goal of 1.5."

Weak: Changing the program every two weeks because the student seems frustrated. Better: Hold the intervention steady for 6 to 8 weeks unless the data fall clearly below the decision rule. Then change one thing.

Weak: Measuring a reading intervention with the weekly spelling test. Better: Measure the skill you taught, with a probe that stays the same length and level each week.

Weak: Telling a parent the school must finish Tier 2 and Tier 3 before it can evaluate. Better: "We can keep the intervention going while we evaluate. The data we collect will be part of the evaluation."

Weak: Counting a seat change or extra time as the intervention. Better: List accommodations separately. An intervention teaches a skill; an accommodation changes access to the task.

When a parent asks for an evaluation during the intervention

Parents can request an initial evaluation at any time, including in the middle of an intervention cycle.^[2] Federal guidance says an RTI process cannot be used to delay or deny an evaluation of a student suspected of having a disability.^[1] Pass the request to your evaluation coordinator the same day and keep collecting data. The parent's view of what happens next is covered in can a school delay an evaluation for RTI.

For a learning disability decision, the team will need evidence that the student had appropriate instruction and repeated assessments of progress at reasonable intervals.^[4] A clean intervention log is exactly that evidence.

Using the IEP due date calculator

Once the school receives signed consent, the evaluation timeline starts. Enter the date consent was received in the IEP due date calculator and set the timeline to 60 days or your state's number. It returns the deadline so the team can plan testing around the intervention schedule. For how the clock works, see the 60-day evaluation timeline.

The next decision, whether the data are strong enough to refer, is covered in when to refer for special education after RTI.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a pre-referral intervention last?

Most teams review after 6 to 8 weeks of weekly data, which gives enough points to judge a trend. The intervention can run longer if the student is growing. It should never be a reason to delay an evaluation when a disability is suspected.

Does a parent have to agree to a pre-referral intervention?

Usually not, because it is general education instruction. Most schools still tell parents about the plan and share the data. Parent consent is required before a special education evaluation begins.

What is the difference between a pre-referral intervention and an accommodation?

An intervention teaches a skill and is measured over time, such as a phonics group with weekly probes. An accommodation changes how the student gets to the work, such as extended time or preferential seating, without teaching the skill.

Use it in IEP Atlas

Sources

OSEP Memo 11-07: Response to Intervention (RTI) (January 21, 2011), U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
34 CFR §300.301: Initial evaluations, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
34 CFR §300.302: Screening for instructional purposes is not evaluation, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
34 CFR §300.309: Determining the existence of a specific learning disability, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
Decision Rules for Analyzing Academic Progress Monitoring Data, National Center on Intensive Intervention
RTI (Part 1): An Overview, IRIS Center, Vanderbilt University

Written and checked by the IEP Atlas editorial team under our editorial policy. This guide describes general practice and federal rules. It is not legal advice; your state may add requirements, and the IEP team makes the decisions for each student.