Using intervention data in an SLD evaluation

RTI data answer the question the SLD rules ask in 34 CFR 300.309(a)(2)(i): did the student make sufficient progress to meet age or state standards when given research-based intervention?^[1] Good data also cover a second requirement, that the team rule out lack of appropriate instruction by showing quality teaching and repeated assessments of achievement shared with parents.^[1] The steps below turn a folder of probes into evidence that holds up at the eligibility meeting.

For how RTI compares with the other two methods, see SLD identification methods.

What you need before you start

• Universal screening scores for the student and the grade, for at least two windows.
• A record of each intervention: program, group size, minutes per session, sessions per week, start and end dates and who taught it.
• Fidelity data: observation checklists or session logs showing the intervention ran as planned.
• Progress monitoring scores with dates, on the same measure throughout each phase.
• Proof that parents got progress updates, with dates.
• Your state's SLD criteria, since states set the rules for what counts as insufficient response.

Step by step

Step 1: Check that the instruction was appropriate

Before looking at a single probe, confirm the core class and the intervention were sound. Was the core reading program research-based, and did most of the class reach benchmark? If 60 of 90 second graders missed the winter benchmark, the problem may be the core program, not the student. Then check the intervention logs. A plan that called for 30 minutes 5 days a week but logged 30 minutes 2 days a week is a dosage problem, not a disability finding.

Step 2: Confirm the measure and the probes are usable

Progress monitoring must use a valid, sensitive measure at the right level, given the same way each time. Oral reading fluency, nonsense word fluency and math computation probes are typical. The National Center on Intensive Intervention rates progress monitoring tools on reliability and validity, which helps when the tool is questioned.^[3] Mixing passage sets or levels mid-phase breaks the trend line.

Step 3: Describe the level

Level is where the student is now compared with peers or benchmarks. Use the median of the last 3 probes, not one score. Compare with the grade-level benchmark and the local peer median. The oral reading fluency norms guide explains how published norms are built and used.

Step 4: Compute the rate of improvement

Rate of improvement (ROI) is the slope: units gained per week. The simplest version is (last median minus first median) divided by weeks. A least-squares trend line is better when you have 8 or more points. The guide to rate of improvement calculation shows both methods.

Step 5: Compare growth with a standard

Compare the student's ROI with typical growth for the grade or with the growth of peers who started at a similar level. Many teams look for a dual discrepancy: the student is both well below peers in level and growing much more slowly. Decision rules such as the four-point rule help judge whether the trend is above or below the goal line.^[4] The guide to the four-point rule gives the details.

Step 6: Show the change in intensity

Insufficient response to one weak intervention is not enough. Show that the team intensified: smaller groups, more minutes, a more targeted program. Data-based individualization describes this process of adjusting intervention based on data.^[5] Graph each phase with a line between phases so reviewers see what changed.

Step 7: Write it up for the report

When RTI is used, the written SLD report must include the instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected, and show that parents were told about the data being gathered and their right to request an evaluation.^[2] State the level, ROI and comparison in one plain paragraph and attach the graph.

Worked example: Ava, grade 2

Ava is fictional. All numbers are illustrations, not benchmarks.

Core and screening. In fall, 72 of 88 second graders met the oral reading fluency benchmark on the district screener, so the core program is working for most students. Ava read 18 words correct per minute (WCPM).

Phase 1, tier 2 (weeks 1 to 10). Small group of 5, 30 minutes, 4 days a week, explicit phonics program. Logs show 37 of 40 planned sessions delivered. Weekly probes on grade 2 passages:

Median of the first 3 probes is 18 and the last 3 is 22. ROI = (22 minus 18) / 9 weeks = 0.44 WCPM per week. Peers in the same tier 2 group who started between 15 and 25 WCPM grew a median of 1.3 WCPM per week.

Phase 2, tier 3 (weeks 11 to 20). Group of 2, 45 minutes, 5 days a week, a more intensive structured literacy program. Fidelity observations: 4 of 4 rated at or above 90% of steps. Ava's medians move from 23 to 27 WCPM over 9 weeks: ROI = 0.44 WCPM per week again.

Level at week 20. Ava reads 27 WCPM. The winter peer median for grade 2 in her school is 72 WCPM.

Conclusion paragraph for the report. "Ava received 20 weeks of research-based reading intervention, intensified at week 11 from a group of 5 for 120 minutes weekly to a group of 2 for 225 minutes weekly, with fidelity documented. Her oral reading fluency grew 0.44 words correct per minute per week in both phases, compared with 1.3 for peers who started at a similar level. At week 20 she reads 27 WCPM, well below the school's grade 2 peer median of 72. Progress reports were sent to her parents every 4 weeks. These data show insufficient response to intervention in reading fluency and basic reading skill."

The team still needs the other pieces: the observation, exclusionary factors and a decision on need for specially designed instruction. But the RTI evidence is now clear and defensible.

Common mistakes

• Weak: "Ava did not respond to intervention." Better: Report level, ROI and the comparison in numbers.
• Weak: Using 3 probes over 6 weeks. Better: Aim for 6 to 8 or more points per phase so the trend is stable.^[4]
• Weak: Switching between grade 1 and grade 2 passages mid-phase. Better: Hold the level constant within a phase, and mark any change on the graph.
• Weak: Ignoring missed sessions. Better: Report sessions delivered against sessions planned.
• Weak: Continuing tier 3 for a year while a parent waits for an evaluation. Better: Start the evaluation when the parent asks; RTI cannot delay it.^[6] See can a school delay an evaluation for RTI for the details.

Templates and tools

The reading fluency data sheet records weekly WCPM, and the oral reading fluency measurement page explains scoring. Use the IEP due date calculator to track the evaluation deadline once consent is signed. When the student qualifies, the library of goals for specific learning disability has reading goals that pick up from the same baseline, and the guide to IEPs for specific learning disabilities covers the next steps.

Frequently asked questions

Use it in IEP Atlas

• RTI in the IEP glossary
• MTSS in the IEP glossary
• IEP goals for specific learning disability
• Reading fluency data sheet
• IEP due date calculator

Related guides

• The IEP evaluation process: from referral to eligibility
• SLD identification: discrepancy vs RTI vs patterns of strengths and weaknesses
• SLD eligibility report template
• Rate of improvement (ROI) calculation
• Decision rules: the four-point rule and trend analysis
• Can a school delay an evaluation for RTI?
• From MTSS to referral: when intervention data says it is time

Sources

1. 34 CFR §300.309: Determining the existence of a specific learning disability, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
2. 34 CFR §300.311: Specific documentation for the eligibility determination, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
3. Progress Monitoring: Data & Goal Setting, National Center on Intensive Intervention
4. Decision Rules for Analyzing Academic Progress Monitoring Data, National Center on Intensive Intervention
5. What Is Data-Based Individualization?, National Center on Intensive Intervention
6. OSEP Memo 11-07: Response to Intervention (RTI) (January 21, 2011), U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs

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.