Tiered Interventions for Reading Mastery

Title: Tiered Reading Interventions: Integrating Bloom's Mastery Learning and the Brigance Inventory for Effective Support

 

1. Introduction
2. Overview of Tiered Intervention in Reading
3. Bloom's Mastery Learning and its Application to Reading Intervention
4. The Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills II
5. Tier 1 Intervention Strategies
6. Tier 2 Intervention Strategies
7. Tier 3 Intervention Strategies
8. Progress Monitoring Frequency and Methods
9. Example Individualized Learning Plans for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Students
10. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Reading proficiency is a fundamental skill that underpins academic success across all subjects. However, many students struggle with reading, necessitating targeted interventions to support their development. This article explores the implementation of tiered interventions in reading, specifically focusing on the integration of Bloom's Mastery Learning approach and the Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills II. We will examine the characteristics of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 interventions, discuss appropriate progress monitoring frequencies, and provide examples of individualized learning plans for students requiring additional support.

2. Overview of Tiered Intervention in Reading

The tiered intervention model, often referred to as Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), is a framework designed to provide increasingly intensive and individualized support to students based on their needs. In the context of reading instruction, this model typically consists of three tiers:

Tier 1: Core instruction provided to all students in the general education classroom. This tier focuses on high-quality, evidence-based reading instruction and is designed to meet the needs of approximately 80-85% of students.

Tier 2: Supplemental instruction provided to students who do not adequately respond to Tier 1 instruction. This tier typically involves small group interventions and targets about 10-15% of students who need additional support.

Tier 3: Intensive, individualized instruction for students who do not make sufficient progress with Tier 2 interventions. This tier is typically reserved for 3-5% of students who require the most intensive support.

3. Bloom's Mastery Learning and its Application to Reading Intervention

Bloom's Mastery Learning is an instructional approach developed by Benjamin Bloom in the 1960s. This model posits that given sufficient time and appropriate learning conditions, nearly all students can master a set of learning objectives. The key principles of Bloom's Mastery Learning include:

1. Clear learning objectives
2. Division of content into manageable units
3. Frequent formative assessments
4. Feedback and corrective instruction
5. Additional time and resources for those who need it

When applied to reading interventions, Bloom's Mastery Learning can be particularly effective. For example:

- In Tier 1, teachers can establish clear reading objectives for each grade level and provide whole-class instruction on these objectives.

- In Tier 2, small group interventions can focus on specific units of reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, fluency) with frequent assessments to monitor progress.

- In Tier 3, individualized instruction can provide intensive support on particular reading components, with continuous feedback and corrective instruction until mastery is achieved.

4. The Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills II

The Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills II (CIBS-II) is a widely used assessment tool developed by Albert Brigance. This inventory is designed to assess academic skills in key areas, including reading, writing, and mathematics. The CIBS-II is particularly valuable in the context of tiered interventions because it:

1. Provides a comprehensive assessment of reading skills across various domains
2. Allows for precise identification of specific skill deficits
3. Facilitates progress monitoring through repeated administrations
4. Offers both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced interpretations

According to the Brigance CIBS-II Standardization and Validation Manual, the inventory demonstrates strong psychometric properties, including high reliability and validity. This makes it a suitable tool for informing tiered interventions and tracking student progress over time.

5. Tier 1 Intervention Strategies

Tier 1 interventions in reading focus on providing high-quality, evidence-based instruction to all students in the general education classroom. Key components of effective Tier 1 reading instruction include:

1. Phonemic awareness instruction
2. Systematic phonics instruction
3. Fluency practice
4. Vocabulary development
5. Reading comprehension strategies

In the context of Bloom's Mastery Learning, Tier 1 interventions might involve:

- Clear learning objectives for each reading component
- Whole-class instruction on each objective
- Regular formative assessments to check for understanding
- Differentiated instruction to address varying student needs within the general classroom setting

6. Tier 2 Intervention Strategies

Tier 2 interventions are designed for students who do not adquately respond to Tier 1 instruction. These interventions typically involve:

1. Small group instruction (3-5 students)
2. Increased instructional time (e.g., an additional 30 minutes per day)
3. More frequent progress monitoring
4. Focus on specific skill deficits identified through assessment

Applying Bloom's Mastery Learning and the Brigance Inventory, Tier 2 interventions might include:

- Targeted instruction on specific reading components identified as weaknesses through the CIBS-II
- Breaking down skills into smaller, manageable units
- More frequent formative assessments (e.g., weekly probes)
- Immediate feedback and corrective instruction based on assessment results

7. Tier 3 Intervention Strategies

Tier 3 interventions are the most intensive and are reserved for students who do not make sufficient progress with Tier 2 support. Characteristics of Tier 3 interventions include:

1. Individualized or very small group instruction (1-3 students)
2. Significantly increased instructional time (e.g., 60+ minutes daily)
3. Very frequent progress monitoring
4. Highly targeted instruction based on individual student needs

In the context of Bloom's Mastery Learning and the Brigance Inventory, Tier 3 interventions might involve:

- Intensive, one-on-one instruction on specific reading skills identified as significant weaknesses through the CIBS-II
- Breaking skills down into very small, manageable units
- Daily practice and assessment of targeted skills
- Immediate, corrective feedback and re-teaching as needed
- Extended time and multiple opportunities for mastery

8. Progress Monitoring Frequency and Methods

The frequency of progress monitoring should increase with the intensity of the intervention:

Tier 1: Universal screening 3 times per year (fall, winter, spring)
Tier 2: Bi-weekly or monthly progress monitoring
Tier 3: Weekly progress monitoring

For Tiers 2 and 3, progress monitoring methods might include:

- Brief, targeted assessments of specific skills (e.g., one-minute reading fluency probes)
- Regular administration of relevant CIBS-II subtests
- Curriculum-based measurements aligned with intervention goals

Data from these assessments should be used to make informed decisions about continuing, modifying, or intensifying interventions.

Shall I proceed with the final sections, including example individualized learning plans?

9. Example Individualized Learning Plans for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Students

Individualized learning plans for students in Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions should be based on SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) and objectives. Here are examples for both tiers:

Tier 2 Individualized Learning Plan Example:

Student: Sarah, Grade 3

Area of Need: Reading Fluency

Baseline: 45 words correct per minute (WCPM) on grade-level text

Goal: Within 12 weeks, Sarah will increase her oral reading fluency to 75 WCPM on grade-level text, as measured by weekly one-minute timed readings.

Objectives:
1. By week 4, Sarah will read 55 WCPM on grade-level text.
2. By week 8, Sarah will read 65 WCPM on grade-level text.
3. By week 12, Sarah will read 75 WCPM on grade-level text.

Intervention Strategies:
- Small group (3-4 students) fluency instruction for 30 minutes, 4 days per week
- Repeated readings of decodable texts
- Partner reading with peer modeling
- Timed practice with self-graphing of progress

Progress Monitoring: Weekly one-minute timed readings of grade-level text

Tier 3 Individualized Learning Plan Example:

Student: Alex, Grade 4

Area of Need: Decoding and Phonics

Baseline: 60% accuracy on CVC words, 30% accuracy on words with blends and digraphs

Goal: Within 16 weeks, Alex will increase his decoding accuracy to 90% on CVC words and 80% on words with blends and digraphs, as measured by weekly assessments using the Brigance CIBS-II Word Analysis subtest.

Objectives:

1. By week 4, Alex will achieve 70% accuracy on CVC words and 45% on words with blends and digraphs.
2. By week 8, Alex will achieve 80% accuracy on CVC words and 60% on words with blends and digraphs.
3. By week 12, Alex will achieve 85% accuracy on CVC words and 70% on words with blends and digraphs.
4. By week 16, Alex will achieve 90% accuracy on CVC words and 80% on words with blends and digraphs.

Intervention Strategies:

- One-on-one instruction for 60 minutes daily
- Systematic, explicit phonics instruction using a research-based program
- Daily practice with manipulatives (e.g.,letter tiles, sound boxes)
- Decodable text reading with immediate corrective feedback
- Computer-assisted instruction for additional practice

Progress Monitoring: Weekly administration of the Brigance CIBS-II Word Analysis subtest

10. Conclusion

Implementing tiered interventions in reading, informed by Bloom's Mastery Learning approach and utilizing tools like the Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills II, can significantly enhance support for struggling readers. By providing increasingly intensive and targeted interventions, educators can address specific skill deficits and help students achieve reading proficiency.

The integration of clear learning objectives, frequent assessments, and corrective feedback, as emphasized in Bloom's Mastery Learning, aligns well with the tiered intervention model. Meanwhile, the use of standardized tools like the Brigance CIBS-II enables precise identification of needs and accurate progress monitoring.

Effective implementation of this approach requires:
1. High-quality core instruction at Tier 1
2. Early identification of students needing additional support
3. Evidence-based interventions tailored to specific skill deficits
4. Regular progress monitoring with data-driven decision-making
5. Individualized learning plans with SMART goals and objectives

By adhering to these principles and utilizing the strategies outlined in this article, educators can create a comprehensive system of support that maximizes the potential for all students to achieve reading success.

Here are 20 to probe whether a school is truly serving the best interests of its students, particularly regarding IEPs, individual learning plans, and MTSS:

1. How do you justify the continued use of interventions for students who show no progress after months or years of implementation?

2. What concrete steps do you take when a student with an IEP regresses, and how quickly are these steps initiated?

3. How often do you reevaluate the efficacy of your MTSS tiers, and what metrics do you use to determine their success or failure?

4. Can you provide specific examples of how you've modified your approach for students who aren't responding to traditional interventions?

5. What percentage of your students with IEPs are meeting their goals, and how do you account for those who aren't?

6. How do you ensure that your special education teachers implement IEPs with fidelity, rather than merely paying lip service to them?

7. What safeguards do you have in place to prevent the overidentification of minority students for special education services?

8. How do you justify the continued use of educational practices that research has shown to be ineffective or even harmful?

9. What is your protocol for addressing teacher bias in the referral process for special education evaluations?

10. How do you ensure that parents and teachers are genuinely involved in the IEP process, rather than simply being presented with a fait accompli?

11. What measures do you take to prevent the warehousing of students with disabilities in separate classrooms or facilities?

12. How do you justify the use of standardized tests for students with disabilities when these tests may not accurately reflect their abilities or progress?

13. What is your response to critics who argue that your MTSS model is merely a way to delay providing necessary special education services?

14. How do you ensure that your school's focus on test scores isn't coming at the expense of providing a well-rounded education for students with disabilities?

15. What specific training do your general education teachers receive to effectively implement IEPs and support students with disabilities in their classrooms?

16. How do you justify the continued employment of teachers who consistently fail to meet the needs of students with disabilities?

17. What is your protocol for addressing situations where a student's IEP goals are clearly insufficient or inappropriate?

18. How do you ensure that your school's disciplinary policies aren't disproportionately affecting students with disabilities?

19. What concrete steps are you taking to improve post-secondary outcomes for your students with disabilities?

20. How do you justify the allocation of resources to programs or interventions that have shown minimal impact on student achievement?

These questions are designed to cut through bureaucratic jargon and expose any potential shortcomings in a school's approach to special education and intervention services. They demand specific, concrete answers and challenge schools to justify their practices in light of student outcomes.