Using Progress Monitoring and Small Group Instruction to Deliver Effective Reading Interventions: Lessons from Success for All
One particularly effective RTI reading program - Success for All (SFA) - offers a model for frequent and specific progress monitoring coupled with dynamic supports at increasing levels of intensity to address lagging skills. SFA’s approach emphasizes responsive, data-driven decision-making to modify instruction so no child slips through the cracks. Studies on program impacts reveal SFA methodology holds promise for closing equity gaps. SFA schools have posted impressive reading gains for at-risk learners, reducing the proportion of struggling readers referred to special education by over 50% (Smith et al., 2022).
This paper reviews SFA’s best practices utilizing progress monitoring and adaptive interventions across instructional tiers to rescue failing readers. Components of how students’ literacy skills are assessed, analyzed, and addressed differentially based on response data are discussed. Finally, implications are shared for how incorporating elements of SFA’s approach could bolster other schools’ RTI programming and capacity to reverse downward achievement trends. By learning from models like Success for All, educators can take more informed action towards closing literacy gaps while upholding every student’s right to read.
1. Set ambitious but attainable expectations for reading growth through benchmark targets and aimlines at each tier.2. Determine key reading skill indicators and conduct brief, reliable measures of those skills frequently (e.g. weekly fluency checks).3. Make data visual through graphs so that student response patterns over time are clear and easy to analyze quickly.4. Plot student progress against other data points like benchmarks, attendance, grades, etc to evaluate multiple variables impacting performance.5. Establish regular meeting schedules to review progress monitoring data and make timely intervention decisions.6. Use progress data to provide direct, standards-aligned feedback to students about their reading growth.7. Create data decision rules for stepping interventions up or down in intensity based on rates of improvement over set time frames.8. Progress monitor with increased frequency and sensitivity for students receiving Tier 2 and 3 services.9. Customize interventions to target skill gaps revealed through diagnostic assessments rather than taking a one-size fits all approach.10. Use progress monitoring methods that capture generalization of skills to other contexts like independent reading or comprehension versus isolated skill drills.
Tier 1: Core Classroom Instruction and Progress Monitoring
SFA’s framework recognizes that effective reading interventions must start from a solid base of research-based core literacy instruction, also known as Tier 1 (Slavin et al., 2010). In SFA schools, students receive 90 minutes of daily reading instruction using SFA curricular materials like Reading Wings or Reading Roots (Slavin et al., 2013). To enable data-based differentiation, students are placed strategically into reading groups by performance level called Reading Roots Homogenous Reading Groups. This small group instruction targets student skills efficiently while allowing for progress monitoring by group.
During the Tier 1 instruction, SFA teachers utilize specific assessments aligned to priority reading competencies expected at each grade level. Reading Roots groups administer 2 minute timings to measure oral reading fluency rates regularly. For example, teachers examine student growth on freeze frames, a type of fluency exercise focused on phrasing. The Reading Wings curriculum advocates tracking student mastery on discrete phonics and word analysis skills such as phonemic awareness using curriculum-based measures (Slavin et al., 2013). Both reading programs integrate comprehension questions and vocabulary assessments as well to ensure a balanced approach to literacy. Special attention is given to program-defined checkpoints which benchmark expectations for gains during each month of the school year.
By plotting student performance on these reading measures over time, Tier 1 instruction alone allows teachers to identify struggling readers in need of Tier 2 or 3 intervention. Within the SFA assessment system, struggling readers unable to maintain grade-level trajectory are referred to as “low-performing” readers requiring differentiated support addressing their lagging skills (Chamberlain et al., 2013).
Tier 2: Small Group Interventions with Increased Monitoring
SFA’s primary Tier 2 intervention is delivered via certified reading tutors who facilitate small groups of 1-3 identified students for daily 20 minute sessions (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011). The initial goal is remediating skills gaps through targeted, manualized instruction on the high leverage reading competencies like alphabetics, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension. Tutors draw materials from the SFA library to build customized intervention plans relying heavily on modeling, guided practice, and independent work differentiated to student needs.
A key instructional technique used is scaffolding students across skills through gradual release of responsibility. For example, the tutor might think aloud initially when demonstrating a decoding strategy like breaking apart phonemes. Across subsequent sessions that skill is practiced collaboratively with the tutor providing feedback before students demonstrating independence applying the strategy while reading increasingly complex texts.
The increased intensity of Tier 2 instruction also enables reading tutors to progress monitor students weekly or even daily to judge the efficacy of interventions (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011). Brief oral reading or phonics assessments might be administered as exit tickets to gauge skill acquisition. Tutors track performance quantitatively to visualize growth and adjust supports accordingly. If progress is insufficient, tutors first revisit their instructional techniques or materials. However, recurring performance deficits below aim lines or benchmarks would trigger referral to Tier 3 services.
An important element of SFA Tier 2 instruction is timely evaluation of intervention effectiveness using eight week cycles (SFAF, 2022). Every eight weeks, reading teams meet to analyze progress monitoring graphs for students receiving Tier 2 tutoring. Intervention groups that have achieved reading gains sufficient to close achievement gaps are transitioned back solely to Tier 1 classroom instruction. This frequent re-evaluation ensures resources stay concentrated on the students demonstrating the greatest needs. For students continuing to struggle, new interventions are initiated, such as new group configurations, revised learning objectives, or extended tutoring sessions.
Tier 3: Intensive 1-on-1 Remediation
Students exhibiting limited responsiveness in Tiers 1 and 2 are provided sustained 1-on-1 support through SFA’s Tier 3 instruction delivered by certified reading specialists (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011). These students undergo comprehensive diagnostic evaluations identifying deficits in specific reading components like phonics, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension. The exam results allow creation of a personalized RTI plan outlining skills-based goals and tailored interventions believed capable of remediating those gap areas.
Tier 3 instruction applies the same scaffolding and release of responsibility used in small groups but with greater intensity made possible via individualized attention. Materials and lesson pacing are adjusted to the struggling learner’s needs also. To manage such highly personalized instruction, the reading specialist maintains a detailed intervention grid mapping interventions attempted to dates implemented and student outcome data (SFAF, 2022). This grid allows efficient tracking of response patterns over time to determine the most impactful strategies for a given student.
Progress monitoring throughout Tier 3 needs to be frequent and sensitive to smaller gains given the severity of reading needs (SFAF, 2022). Curriculum-based measures like word reading fluency timings may be administered weekly. Likewise, reading specialists prioritize continual collection of diagnostic data using informal reading inventories or decoding assessments. Progress towards IEP goals is evaluated routinely as stipulated. All assessment data both guides ongoing intervention modifications to best remediate the identified skill deficits unique to that struggling reader.
Should students exhibit insufficient progress following multiple Tier 3 approaches, referrals are made for psychoeducational testing and evaluation for IDEA services like special education. Here the detailed Tier 3 progress monitoring provides helpful information establishing how the severity of student reading needs necessitates resources beyond what can be delivered through the RTI tiers alone.
Implications for Schools’ Reading Programs
While Success for All offers one blueprint for organizing assessment and interventions across tiers, schools can apply elements of this model more universally to enhance all students’ reading outcomes. Most critically, SFA provides a framework for rational, data-driven decision making guiding dynamic service delivery (SFAF, 2010). First, reliable indicators of reading proficiencies must be routinely collected schoolwide through standardized, skills-based assessments. Reading achievement data must then be expressed quantitatively to enable comparison of student trajectories against validated benchmarks and projections of adequate growth. Struggling readers can thus be identified quickly and objectively as those failing to reach synchronous reading levels or make customary gains alongside peers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017).
Upon identifying which students require intervention, SFA offers guidance on defining intensity levels of that support by tier. Tier 2 interventions represent a ratcheting up from Tier 1 through reduced group size and increased time spent in supplemental instruction. Tier 3 interventions build further intensity via individual, diagnostic-driven teaching. SFA research supports this measured continuum of services model for catching struggling readers (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011).
Additionally, SFA provides a framework for actively monitoring progress once interventions commence to ensure their effectiveness. Establishing short cycles for evaluating interventions eliminates assumptions that a given set of instructional supports remains appropriate indefinitely without evidence the student is responding positively. Progress monitoring data both justify continuing interventions producing gains and prompt modification for those demonstrating futility. This data-based adaptability could cut down on persistence of interventions misaligned to student needs.
By studying SFA’s rigorous attention to data tracking and analysis to inform action, schools can take a more proactive, responsive approach in their own RTI process. Schools should continually examine the quality and frequency of assessment data they collect around essential reading competencies. Do those data produce a precise enough picture of abilities and growth curves across specific subskills to pinpoint lagging areas? Are data reviewed with enough regularity to identify emerging reading gaps rapidly before they become entrenched deficiencies? Are struggling readers’ responses to interventions monitored consistently enough to evaluate what combination of group size, materials, and instructional techniques produce an uptick in skills versus further decline? While rarely perfect, schools’ RTI programming could still be adjusted closer toward SFA’s example in using progress monitoring and adaptive interventions to target instruction efficiently to the appropriate tier for each learner.
In summary, stalled reading trajectories contribute greatly to long term student academic failures. But SFA’s approach offers guidance to interrupting declining achievement through frequent and specific progress monitoring coupled with dynamic reading supports by tier. Their model for catching student reading needs early and responding with data-driven interventions could significantly benefit schools’ capacity to close equity gaps and improve literacy outcomes for all.
SFA’s framework recognizes that effective reading interventions must start from a solid base of research-based core literacy instruction, also known as Tier 1 (Slavin et al., 2010). In SFA schools, students receive 90 minutes of daily reading instruction using SFA curricular materials like Reading Wings or Reading Roots (Slavin et al., 2013). To enable data-based differentiation, students are placed strategically into reading groups by performance level called Reading Roots Homogenous Reading Groups. This small group instruction targets student skills efficiently while allowing for progress monitoring by group.
During the Tier 1 instruction, SFA teachers utilize specific assessments aligned to priority reading competencies expected at each grade level. Reading Roots groups administer 2 minute timings to measure oral reading fluency rates regularly. For example, teachers examine student growth on freeze frames, a type of fluency exercise focused on phrasing. The Reading Wings curriculum advocates tracking student mastery on discrete phonics and word analysis skills such as phonemic awareness using curriculum-based measures (Slavin et al., 2013). Both reading programs integrate comprehension questions and vocabulary assessments as well to ensure a balanced approach to literacy. Special attention is given to program-defined checkpoints which benchmark expectations for gains during each month of the school year.
By plotting student performance on these reading measures over time, Tier 1 instruction alone allows teachers to identify struggling readers in need of Tier 2 or 3 intervention. Within the SFA assessment system, struggling readers unable to maintain grade-level trajectory are referred to as “low-performing” readers requiring differentiated support addressing their lagging skills (Chamberlain et al., 2013).
Tier 2: Small Group Interventions with Increased Monitoring
SFA’s primary Tier 2 intervention is delivered via certified reading tutors who facilitate small groups of 1-3 identified students for daily 20 minute sessions (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011). The initial goal is remediating skills gaps through targeted, manualized instruction on the high leverage reading competencies like alphabetics, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension. Tutors draw materials from the SFA library to build customized intervention plans relying heavily on modeling, guided practice, and independent work differentiated to student needs.
A key instructional technique used is scaffolding students across skills through gradual release of responsibility. For example, the tutor might think aloud initially when demonstrating a decoding strategy like breaking apart phonemes. Across subsequent sessions that skill is practiced collaboratively with the tutor providing feedback before students demonstrating independence applying the strategy while reading increasingly complex texts.
The increased intensity of Tier 2 instruction also enables reading tutors to progress monitor students weekly or even daily to judge the efficacy of interventions (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011). Brief oral reading or phonics assessments might be administered as exit tickets to gauge skill acquisition. Tutors track performance quantitatively to visualize growth and adjust supports accordingly. If progress is insufficient, tutors first revisit their instructional techniques or materials. However, recurring performance deficits below aim lines or benchmarks would trigger referral to Tier 3 services.
An important element of SFA Tier 2 instruction is timely evaluation of intervention effectiveness using eight week cycles (SFAF, 2022). Every eight weeks, reading teams meet to analyze progress monitoring graphs for students receiving Tier 2 tutoring. Intervention groups that have achieved reading gains sufficient to close achievement gaps are transitioned back solely to Tier 1 classroom instruction. This frequent re-evaluation ensures resources stay concentrated on the students demonstrating the greatest needs. For students continuing to struggle, new interventions are initiated, such as new group configurations, revised learning objectives, or extended tutoring sessions.
Tier 3: Intensive 1-on-1 Remediation
Students exhibiting limited responsiveness in Tiers 1 and 2 are provided sustained 1-on-1 support through SFA’s Tier 3 instruction delivered by certified reading specialists (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011). These students undergo comprehensive diagnostic evaluations identifying deficits in specific reading components like phonics, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension. The exam results allow creation of a personalized RTI plan outlining skills-based goals and tailored interventions believed capable of remediating those gap areas.
Tier 3 instruction applies the same scaffolding and release of responsibility used in small groups but with greater intensity made possible via individualized attention. Materials and lesson pacing are adjusted to the struggling learner’s needs also. To manage such highly personalized instruction, the reading specialist maintains a detailed intervention grid mapping interventions attempted to dates implemented and student outcome data (SFAF, 2022). This grid allows efficient tracking of response patterns over time to determine the most impactful strategies for a given student.
Progress monitoring throughout Tier 3 needs to be frequent and sensitive to smaller gains given the severity of reading needs (SFAF, 2022). Curriculum-based measures like word reading fluency timings may be administered weekly. Likewise, reading specialists prioritize continual collection of diagnostic data using informal reading inventories or decoding assessments. Progress towards IEP goals is evaluated routinely as stipulated. All assessment data both guides ongoing intervention modifications to best remediate the identified skill deficits unique to that struggling reader.
Should students exhibit insufficient progress following multiple Tier 3 approaches, referrals are made for psychoeducational testing and evaluation for IDEA services like special education. Here the detailed Tier 3 progress monitoring provides helpful information establishing how the severity of student reading needs necessitates resources beyond what can be delivered through the RTI tiers alone.
Implications for Schools’ Reading Programs
While Success for All offers one blueprint for organizing assessment and interventions across tiers, schools can apply elements of this model more universally to enhance all students’ reading outcomes. Most critically, SFA provides a framework for rational, data-driven decision making guiding dynamic service delivery (SFAF, 2010). First, reliable indicators of reading proficiencies must be routinely collected schoolwide through standardized, skills-based assessments. Reading achievement data must then be expressed quantitatively to enable comparison of student trajectories against validated benchmarks and projections of adequate growth. Struggling readers can thus be identified quickly and objectively as those failing to reach synchronous reading levels or make customary gains alongside peers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017).
Upon identifying which students require intervention, SFA offers guidance on defining intensity levels of that support by tier. Tier 2 interventions represent a ratcheting up from Tier 1 through reduced group size and increased time spent in supplemental instruction. Tier 3 interventions build further intensity via individual, diagnostic-driven teaching. SFA research supports this measured continuum of services model for catching struggling readers (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011).
Additionally, SFA provides a framework for actively monitoring progress once interventions commence to ensure their effectiveness. Establishing short cycles for evaluating interventions eliminates assumptions that a given set of instructional supports remains appropriate indefinitely without evidence the student is responding positively. Progress monitoring data both justify continuing interventions producing gains and prompt modification for those demonstrating futility. This data-based adaptability could cut down on persistence of interventions misaligned to student needs.
By studying SFA’s rigorous attention to data tracking and analysis to inform action, schools can take a more proactive, responsive approach in their own RTI process. Schools should continually examine the quality and frequency of assessment data they collect around essential reading competencies. Do those data produce a precise enough picture of abilities and growth curves across specific subskills to pinpoint lagging areas? Are data reviewed with enough regularity to identify emerging reading gaps rapidly before they become entrenched deficiencies? Are struggling readers’ responses to interventions monitored consistently enough to evaluate what combination of group size, materials, and instructional techniques produce an uptick in skills versus further decline? While rarely perfect, schools’ RTI programming could still be adjusted closer toward SFA’s example in using progress monitoring and adaptive interventions to target instruction efficiently to the appropriate tier for each learner.
In summary, stalled reading trajectories contribute greatly to long term student academic failures. But SFA’s approach offers guidance to interrupting declining achievement through frequent and specific progress monitoring coupled with dynamic reading supports by tier. Their model for catching student reading needs early and responding with data-driven interventions could significantly benefit schools’ capacity to close equity gaps and improve literacy outcomes for all.
The tiresome static of SFA's faultfinders
Once again we find the literati circling their wagons against the Success for All program, that ongoing experiment in enforced literacy among the young which has so vexed critics and so vitalized elementary education in this country over the past quarter century. What is their complaint this time? It is ever the same: that SFA overturns the sleepy hollow of entrenched school bureaucracies by making reading, writing, speaking and listening the paramount goals of the system. Efforts at early language mastery offend those who prefer their districts top-heavy, prefer that things remain below par, and would rather not make progress monitoring of pupils mandatory.
But we should know by now that whenever an earnest initiative arises promising to equip students with the fundamentals they so lack, the establishment will bat its eyes in disbelief and murmur vague nothings about implementation and resources. Have we ears so delicate that we cannot abide frank speech about the failures of the status quo?
I myself have lingering attachments to so-called "balanced literacy" and recognize SFA as imperfect, wanting in parts. Yet I look askance at critics so denuded of magnanimity that they cannot entertain reforms even as they bemoan systemic inadequacy. What should concern us are not administrative inconveniences but the black-and-blue marks of illiteracy that so many carry from institutions that nominally "teach" them.
Read SFA's history: early indictments in places like Baltimore, Memphis and Houston provoked adaption and change. Its overseers were not doctrinaire; they altered course. Compare this receptiveness to the obstinacy of anti-SFA voices who rarely offer concrete alternatives. Naysayers gesture airily at the "difficulty" of implementation, the countless man-hours required. But cries from the gallery about labor are no substitute for action.
No administrator relishes systemic shock. But we do our charges no greater service by defending firewalls around bad customs than by encouraging pedagogies centered on the foundational skills so absent among undergraduates. Insistence on this priority in the early grades invariably jars what many consider the "balance" of elementary education. But we do young readers no favors by sparing their feelings at the cost of their empowerment. And literate, numerate graduates are surely recompense enough for ruffled feathers in the short-term.
SFA's approach is doubtless sharpened in places by animus towards inertia. I myself raised doubts about Reading Wings, that bizarre attempt at pedagogy-by-ornithology. Likewise the program's crusading spirit risks zealotry in some incarnations. But weighed against the vapid self-assurance of critics satisfied with shallow learning, such excesses prove venial indeed.
After much empty talk about "resources" and "adaptation," the underlying truth emerges plain as day: those aligned against Success for All favor the tranquility of a failed status quo over the hazards of reform that demands accountability. We must get over this arrested development. For until those opposed can advance something beyond paternalistic worry and bureaucratic euphemism, their opposition scarcely merits consideration. Our children deserve an education befitting their brilliance. And literacy is the wellspring of erudition; we do them a bold injustice by anything less.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you!