Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: 

Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier 

Intervention in the Primary Grades

Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: 

Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier 

Intervention in the Primary Grades

IES PRACTICE GUIDE

NCEE 2009-4045

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education

to bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic 

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs. 

Authors of practice guides seldom conduct the types of systematic literature searches 

that are the backbone of a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work 

when it is already published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the 

most important research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a 

search of recent publications to ensure that research citations are up-to-date. 

Unique to IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to rigorous external peer review through the same office that is responsible for independent review 

of other IES publications. A critical task for peer reviewers of a practice guide is to 

determine whether the evidence cited in support of particular recommendations 

is up-to-date and that studies of similar or better quality that point in a different 

direction have not been ignored. Because practice guides depend on the expertise 

of their authors and their group decision-making, the content of a practice guide is 

not and should not be viewed as a set of recommendations that in every case depends on and flows inevitably from scientific research.

The goal of this practice guide is to formulate specific and coherent evidence-based 

recommendations for use by educators addressing the challenge of reducing the 

number of children who fail to learn how to read proficiently by using “response to 

intervention” as a means of both preventing reading difficulty and identifying students who need more help. This is called Response to Intervention (RtI). The guide 

provides practical, clear information on critical RtI topics and is based on the best 

available evidence as judged by the panel. Recommendations in this guide should 

not be construed to imply that no further research is warranted on the effectiveness of particular RtI strategies.
IES PRACTICE GUIDE

NCEE 2009-4045

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Assisting Students Struggling with 

Reading: Response to Intervention 

and Multi-Tier Intervention in the 

Primary Grades

February 2009

Panel

Russell Gersten (Chair)

Instructional Research Group

Donald Compton

Vanderbilt University

Carol M. Connor

Florida State University

Joseph Dimino

Instructional Research Group

Lana Santoro

Instructional Research Group

Sylvia Linan-Thompson 

University of Texas—Austin

W. David Tilly 

Heartland Area Education Agency

Staff

Rebecca Newman-Gonchar 

Instructional Research Group

Kristin Hallgren

Mathematica Policy Research
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences under Contract ED-07-CO-0062 by the What 

Works Clearinghouse, which is operated by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Disclaimer 

The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors’ and do 

not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed 

and applied according to the specific needs of the educators and education agency 

using it, and with full realization that it represents the judgments of the review 

panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that was 

available at the time of publication. This practice guide should be used as a tool to 

assist in decision-making rather than as a “cookbook.” Any references within the 

document to specific education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Sue Betka

Acting Director

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 

Phoebe Cottingham

Commissioner

February 2009

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is 

not necessary, the citation should be: 

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, 

S., and Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response 

to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. 

A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

publications/practiceguides/.

This report is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

Alternative formats 

On request, this publication can be made available in alternative formats, such as 

Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, call the 

alternative format center at (202) 205-8113.
( iii )

Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: 

Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier 

Intervention in the Primary Grades

Contents

Introduction 1

The What Works Clearinghouse standards and their relevance to this guide 2

Overview 4

Scope of the guide 8

Checklist for carrying out the recommendations 9

Recommendation 1. Screen all students for potential reading problems 

at the beginning of the year and again in the middle of the year. Regularly 

monitor the progress of students who are at elevated risk for developing 

reading disabilities. 11

Recommendation 2. Provide differentiated reading instruction for all 

students based on assessments of students’ current reading levels (tier 1). 17

Recommendation 3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to 

three foundational reading skills in small groups to students who score 

below the benchmark on universal screening. Typically these groups 

meet between three and five times a week for 20–40 minutes (tier 2). 19

Recommendation 4. Monitor the progress of tier 2 students at least 

once a month. Use these data to determine whether students still require 

intervention. For those still making insufficient progress, school-wide teams 

should design a tier 3 intervention plan. 24

Recommendation 5. Provide intensive instruction daily that promotes 

the development of various components of reading proficiency to students 

who show minimal progress after reasonable time in tier 2 small group 

instruction (tier 3). 26

Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences 32

Appendix B. About the authors 35

Appendix C. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest 38

Appendix D. Technical information on the studies 39

References 50
( iv )

Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier 

Intervention in the Primary Grades

List of tables

Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides 3

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence 6

Table 3. Recommended target areas for early screening and progress monitoring 13

Table 4. Foundational reading skills in grades K–2 21

Table 5. Progress monitoring measures in grades K–2 25

Table D1. Studies of tier 2 interventions in grades K–2 reading 

that met What Works Clearinghouse standards 41
( 1 )

Introduction

In the primary grades students with reading difficulties may need intervention to 

prevent future reading failure. This guide 

offers specific recommendations to help 

educators identify students in need of intervention and implement evidence-based 

interventions to promote their reading 

achievement. It also describes how to carry 

out each recommendation, including how 

to address potential roadblocks in implementing them. 

We, the authors, are a small group with expertise in various dimensions of this topic. 

Several of us are also experts in research 

methodology. The recommendations in 

this guide reflect not only our expertise 

and experience but the findings of rigorous studies of interventions to promote 

reading achievement. 

Each recommendation received a rating 

that describes the strength of the research 

evidence that has shown its effectiveness. 

These ratings—“strong,” “moderate,” or 

“low”—are defined as: 

Strong refers to consistent and generalizable evidence that a program causes better outcomes.1

1. Following WWC guidelines, we consider a positive, statistically significant effect, or an effect 

size greater than 0.25, as an indicator of positive effects.

Moderate refers to evidence from studies 

that allow strong causal conclusions but 

cannot be generalized with assurance to 

the population on which a recommendation is focused (perhaps because the findings have not been widely replicated) or to 

evidence from studies that are generalizable but have more causal ambiguity than 

offered by experimental designs (such as 

statistical models of correlational data 

or group comparison designs for which 

equivalence of the groups at pretest is 

uncertain). 

Low refers to expert opinion based on reasonable extrapolations from research and 

theory on other topics and evidence from 

studies that do not meet the standards for 

moderate or strong evidence. 

Table 1 details the criteria used to determine the level of evidence for each recommendation. For questions about what 

works best, high-quality experimental and 

quasi-experimental studies, such as those 

meeting the criteria of the What Works 

Clearinghouse (www.whatworks.ed.gov), 

have a privileged position. The evidence 

considered in developing and rating these 

recommendations included experimental 

research on providing differentiated instruction in a general education classroom 

and rigorous evaluations of intensive reading interventions. We also examined studies on the technical adequacy of batteries 

of screening measures. 
Introduction

( 2 )

The What Works Clearinghouse 

standards and their relevance to 

this guide

The panel relied on WWC Evidence Standards to assess the quality of evidence 

supporting educational programs and 

practices and apply a level of evidence 

rating to each recommendation. The WWC 

addresses evidence for the causal validity 

of instructional programs and practices 

using WWC Standards. Information about 

these standards is available at http://ies.

ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/standards/. 

The technical quality of each study is rated 

and placed into one of three categories:

•	 Meets Evidence Standards for randomized controlled trials and regression 

discontinuity studies that provide the 

strongest evidence of causal validity.

•	 Meets Evidence Standards with Reservations for all quasi-experimental 

studies with no design flaws and randomized controlled trials that have 

problems with randomization, attrition, or disruption.

•	 Does Not Meet Evidence Screens for 

studies that do not provide strong evidence of causal validity.

Based on the recommendations and suggestions for their implementation, appendix D presents more information on 

the research evidence supporting the 

recommendations.

The panel would like to thank Kelly Haymond for her contributions to the analysis, Mary Jo Taylor for her expert editorial 

assistance, the WWC reviewers for their 

contribution to the project, and Jo Ellen 

Kerr for her support of the intricate logistics of the project. We also would like to 

thank Scott Cody for his oversight of the 

analyses and the overall progress of the 

practice guide.

Dr. Russell Gersten

Dr. Donald Compton

Dr. Carol M. Connor

Dr. Joseph Dimino

Dr. Lana Santoro

Dr. Sylvia Linan-Thompson

Dr. W. David Tilly
Introduction

( 3 )

Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides

Strong

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as strong requires both 

studies with high internal validity (i.e., studies whose designs can support causal conclusions) 

and studies with high external validity (i.e., studies that in total include enough of the range 

of participants and settings on which the recommendation is focused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized to those participants and settings). Strong evidence 

for this practice guide is operationalized as:

•	 A systematic review of research that generally meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

standards (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the effectiveness of a program, 

practice, or approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 Several well designed, randomized controlled trials or well designed quasi-experiments 

that generally meet WWC standards and support the effectiveness of a program, practice, 

or approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 One large, well designed, randomized controlled, multisite trial that meets WWC standards 

and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory 

evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 For assessments, evidence of reliability and validity that meets the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.a

Moderate

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as moderate requires studies 

with high internal validity but moderate external validity, or studies with high external validity but moderate internal validity. In other words, moderate evidence is derived from studies 

that support strong causal conclusions, but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that 

support the generality of a relationship, but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:

•	 Experiments or quasi-experiments generally meeting WWC standards and supporting the 

effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes and/or other 

conditions of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability and no contrary evidence; OR

•	 Comparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence of groups at pretest and 

therefore do not meet WWC standards but that (a) consistently show enhanced outcomes 

for participants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have no 

major flaws related to internal validity other than lack of demonstrated equivalence at 

pretest (e.g., only one teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts of instructional 

time, highly biased outcome measures); OR

•	 Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning influence of endogenous factors and no contrary evidence; OR

•	 For assessments, evidence of reliability that meets the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testingb but with evidence of validity from samples not adequately representative of the population on which the recommendation is focused.

Low

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as low means that the recommendation is based on expert opinion derived from strong findings or theories in related 

areas or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or 

strong levels. Low evidence is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards for the 

moderate or high levels.

a. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on 

Measurement in Education (1999). 

b. Ibid.
( 4 )

Assisting Students 

Struggling with Reading: 

Response to Intervention 

and Multi-Tier 

Intervention for Reading 

in the Primary Grades 

Overview

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a comprehensive early detection and prevention strategy that identifies struggling students and 

assists them before they fall behind. RtI systems combine universal screening and highquality instruction for all students with interventions targeted at struggling students. 

RtI strategies are used in both reading and 

math instruction. For reading instruction 

in the primary grades (K–2), schools screen 

students at least once a year to identify 

students at risk for future reading failure.2

Students whose screening scores indicate 

potential difficulties with learning to read 

are provided with more intensive reading 

interventions. Student responses to the 

interventions are then measured to determine whether they have made adequate 

progress and either (1) no longer need the 

intervention, (2) continue to need some 

intervention, or (3) need even more intensive intervention. 

In RtI, the levels of interventions are conventionally referred to as “tiers.” RtI is typically 

thought of as having three tiers, with the 

first tier encompassing general classroom 

instruction.3 Some states and school districts, however, have implemented multi-tier 

intervention systems with more than three 

tiers. Within a three-tier RtI model, each tier 

is defined by specific characteristics:

2. Johnson, Jenkins, Petscher, and Catts (in 

press, pp. 3–4).

3. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Vaughn (2008) make the 

case for a three-tier RtI model.

•	 Tier 1 instruction is generally defined 

as reading instruction provided to all 

students in a class. Beyond this general definition, there is no clear consensus on the meaning of the term tier 

1. Instead, it is variously referred to as 

“evidence-based reading instruction,”4

“high quality reading instruction,”5 or 

“an instructional program...with balanced, explicit, and systematic reading 

instruction that fosters both code-based 

and text-based strategies for word identification and comprehension.”6

•	 Tier 2 interventions are provided only 

to students who demonstrate problems based on screening measures or 

weak progress from regular classroom 

instruction. In addition to general 

classroom instruction, tier 2 students 

receive supplemental, small group 

reading instruction aimed at building 

foundational reading skills.

•	 Tier 3 interventions are provided to 

students who do not progress after a 

reasonable amount of time with the 

tier 2 intervention and require more 

intensive assistance. Tier 3 (or, in districts with more than three tiers, tiers 

3 and above) usually entails one-onone tutoring with a mix of instructional interventions. Ongoing analysis 

of student performance data is critical 

in tier 3. Systematically collected data 

are used to identify successes and 

failures in instruction for individual 

students. If students still experience 

difficulty after receiving intensive services, they are evaluated for possible 

special education services. 

Though a relatively new concept, RtI and 

multi-tier interventions are becoming increasingly common. This is attributed in 

4. Vaughn and Fuchs (2006).

5. Division for Learning Disabilities (2007).

6. Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, Fanuele, and Sweeney 

(2007).
Overview

( 5 )

part to the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA), which encourages states to use RtI to 

help prevent reading difficulties and to identify students with learning disabilities. 

RtI’s inclusion in the 2004 reauthorization 

can be traced to two key reports released 

in 2002. First, the President’s Commission 

on Excellence in Special Education (2002) 

report revealed that special education put 

too much emphasis on paperwork and too 

little on instruction.7 It recommended that 

educators put more energy into monitoring student progress in academic areas 

and less into monitoring paperwork and 

compliance with regulations. 

Second, a 2002 report from the National 

Academy of Sciences examined the overrepresentation of students from minority 

subgroups in special education.8 This report proposed ideas for making the referral 

process for learning disabilities more meaningful to classroom teachers, arguing that 

special education “eligibility ensue when a 

student exhibits large differences from typical levels of performance in...[reading] and 

with evidence of insufficient response to highquality interventions...in school settings.”9

This encouraged schools to provide services 

to students struggling in reading within 

general education in the early grades before considering special education. Special 

education would be considered only for 

students who failed to respond to evidencebased interventions or interventions using 

what the field considers best practice.

There are two potential advantages of RtI 

and multi-tier intervention. Struggling students are provided with help in learning 

how to read early in their school careers. 

In the past many students were not provided with additional assistance in reading 

7. Haager, Klingner, and Vaughn (2007).

8. Donovan and Cross (2002).

9. Cited in Haager et al. (2007, p. 5, emphasis 

added). 

until they were officially diagnosed with a 

specific learning disability, often not until 

grade 2 or 3.10 This was the practice even 

though longitudinal research consistently 

showed that students who were weak readers at the early elementary grades tended to 

stay weak readers in the higher grades.11

RtI also urges schools to use evidencebased practices in all tiers and to provide 

intensive services only to students who fail 

to benefit from a well designed, evidencebased intervention. This helps to accurately 

determine which students possess learning 

disabilities in reading since only students 

who do not respond to high-quality reading instruction in their general education 

classrooms would be considered for special 

education. Thus, there is the possibility—

and certainly the hope—that RtI will reduce 

inappropriate referrals to special education, especially of ethnic minority students, 

low-income students, and students who received weak reading instruction.12

The panel also believes that RtI holds the 

most potential for serious ongoing collaboration between the special education community and that of general education—

largely because the collaboration is based 

on objective data and shared understandings of the evidence. 

Summary of the Recommendations 

This practice guide offers five concrete 

recommendations for helping elementary 

schools implement an RtI framework to ensure that all students in the primary grades 

learn to read. These recommendations 

10. Donovan and Cross (2002); Heller, Holtzman, 

and Messick (1982).

11. See Cunningham and Stanovich (1997); Felton and Pepper (1995); Phillips, Norris, Osmond, 

and Maynard (2002); Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, and Fletcher (1996); Juel (1988); 

Torgesen and Burgess (1998); Torgesen, Rashotte, 

and Alexander (2001).

12. Donovan and Cross (2002); Heller, Holtzman, 

and Messick (1982).
Overview

( 6 )

appear in table 2. There are many ways 

to orchestrate this process, and implementing this system entails involvement 

of school personnel at many levels: classroom teachers, special educators, school 

psychologists, paraprofessionals, reading 

coaches, specialists, and the principal. 

This guide provides concrete guidance on 

how to implement RtI; it does not describe 

which individuals on the team provide 

which services.

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence

Recommendation Level of evidence

1. Screen all students for potential reading problems at the beginning of 

the year and again in the middle of the year. Regularly monitor the 

progress of students at risk for developing reading disabilities.

Moderate

Tier 1 intervention/general education

2. Provide time for differentiated reading instruction for all students based 

on assessments of students’ current reading level. Low

Tier 2 intervention

3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational 

reading skills in small groups to students who score below the benchmark 

score on universal screening. Typically, these groups meet between 

three and five times a week, for 20 to 40 minutes.

Strong

4. Monitor the progress of tier 2 students at least once a month. Use these 

data to determine whether students still require intervention. For those 

students still making insufficient progress, schoolwide teams should 

design a tier 3 intervention plan. 

Low

Tier 3 intervention

5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes the development of the various components of reading proficiency to students 

who show minimal progress after reasonable time in tier 2 small group 

instruction (tier 3).

Low

Source: Authors’ compilation based on text.
Overview

( 7 )

We begin with specific methods for setting 

up a universal screening system (recommendation 1). We note the specific reading and reading-related skills that should 

be assessed in screening and progressmonitoring measures at each grade level. 

We assume most educators possess some 

knowledge of universal screening. Therefore, we provide specific suggestions on 

how to ensure that the screening measures 

used are effective.

As part of recommendation 1, we address 

the problem of false positives—students 

whose screening scores suggest that they 

need additional assistance, but who would 

do fine without it. This is a particular problem for measures given at the beginning of 

kindergarten; we explain why and what is 

recommended. We urge that schools seriously investigate both the degree to which 

a screening measure correctly identifies 

students at risk for reading difficulties 

and identifies students at low risk for such 

difficulties.

The second recommendation addresses 

how educators can use assessment data 

to differentiate reading instruction in tier 

1. For example, classroom teachers can 

use assessment data to determine which 

students require additional instruction 

in decoding and vocabulary and which 

require additional assistance only with 

decoding instruction. While the concept 

of tier 1 instruction is amorphous, based 

on conventional definitions, differentiated 

instruction is often mentioned as a critical 

component of tier 1.13

Recommendations 3 and 4 address tier 2 

interventions. In recommendation 3 we 

suggest that tier 2 students receive small 

group instruction in homogeneous groups 

for 20 to 40 minutes, three to five days a 

week. This recommendation has the most 

research and, most importantly, a clear 

13. Connor, Morrison, Fishman, Schatschneider, 

and Underwood (2007).

convergence in findings. It is not important whether a certified teacher or a paraprofessional provides the instruction. But 

instruction should be systematic, highly 

explicit, and highly interactive. We note 

that interventions must not focus only on 

phonemic awareness, decoding, and fluent 

reading (depending on student proficiency 

level) but should also include vocabulary 

and comprehension components.

Recommendation 4 addresses using data 

to monitor progress for students in tier 2 

interventions. Although no studies have 

experimentally tested the impact of progress monitoring on outcomes in reading, 

we still encourage schools to monitor the 

progress of these students so that personnel possess information on how a student 

is doing in general reading proficiency 

and improving in specific skills. It is important to use progress-monitoring data 

to regroup students after six weeks. Tier 

2 students who demonstrate improvement 

and return to tier 1 should be carefully 

monitored to ensure that general classroom instruction is adequate.

Recommendation 5 addresses tier 3 interventions, and we are candid about the 

paucity of research on effective tier 3 intervention. Tier 3 intervention is the most 

ambiguous component of RtI, and we did 

not find research on valid programs or 

processes. Based on the content of smallscale intervention studies and the expert 

opinion of the panel, we suggest, as Vellutino et al. (2007) suggest, that tier 3 

reading instruction be even more intensive than tier 2. Although student reading 

programs should be individualized, they 

should be viewed as more than one-onone instruction. In particular, in listening 

and reading comprehension and vocabulary development small group instruction 

makes sense. We also note that districts 

should carefully monitor the success or 

failure of tier 3 programs, given the paucity of available evidence.
( 8 )

Scope of the 

practice guide

Our goal is to provide evidence-based suggestions for implementing multi-tier interventions that are feasible and based on 

evidence from rigorous research. RtI and 

multi-tier interventions transgress the borders of special and general education and 

demand schoolwide collaboration. Thus, 

our target audience includes classroom 

teachers in the primary grades, special 

educators, school psychologists and counselors, as well as administrators. 

This practice guide provides recommendations to schools and school districts 

on using RtI for primary grade students 

struggling with learning how to read. It 

is designed to guide educators on how 

to identify struggling students using RtI 

and implement interventions to improve 

these students’ reading ability. The guide 

focuses on screening and interventions 

for struggling readers; it does not provide 

recommendations for general classroom 

reading instruction.

We limit the focus of the guide to the primary grades because the bulk of the current research has focused on these grade 

levels. The majority of the research on intervention and screening of students with 

reading difficulties was conducted in early 

grade levels. In addition, for the past 15 

years, the country has seen a large push 

for early intervention to prevent reading 

difficulties later.14 

Multi-tier instruction efforts like RtI can 

potentially prevent many struggling beginning readers from falling behind in ways 

that will harm their future academic success. Some aspects of RtI, however, (such 

as tier 1 instruction) are still poorly defined, and there is little evidence that some 

practices of targeted instruction will be 

effective. But a coordinated multi-tier instruction program that screens and monitors students accurately and addresses the 

core components of reading instruction 

can prevent struggling beginning readers from becoming struggling adolescent 

readers and reduce unnecessary referrals 

to special education.

14. Burns, Snow and Griffin (1996).
( 9 )

Checklist for carrying out the 

recommendations

Recommendation 1. 

Screen all students for potential 

reading problems at the beginning of 

the year and again in the middle of the 

year. Regularly monitor the progress 

of students who are at elevated risk 

for developing reading disabilities.

	Create a building-level team to facilitate the implementation of universal 

screening and progress monitoring.

	Select a set of efficient screening 

measures that identify children at risk for 

poor reading outcomes with reasonable 

degrees of accuracy.

	Use benchmarks or growth rates (or 

a combination of the two) to identify children at low, moderate, or high risk for developing reading difficulties.15

Recommendation 2. 

Provide differentiated reading 

instruction for all students based 

on assessments of students’ current 

reading levels (tier 1). 

	Provide training for teachers on how 

to collect and interpret student data on 

reading efficiently and reliably.

	Develop data-driven decision rules 

for providing differentiated instruction to 

students at varied reading proficiency levels for part of the day.

	Differentiate instruction—including 

varying time, content, and degree of support and scaffolding—based on students’ 

assessed skills.

15. Schatschneider (2006).

Recommendation 3. 

Provide intensive, systematic 

instruction on up to three 

foundational reading skills in small 

groups to students who score below 

the benchmark score on universal 

screening. Typically, these groups 

meet between three and five times a 

week for 20 to 40 minutes (tier 2).

	Use a curriculum that addresses the 

components of reading instruction (comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, 

phonics, and vocabulary) and relates to students’ needs and developmental levels.

	Implement this program three to five 

times a week, for approximately 20 to 40 

minutes. 

	Build skills gradually and provide 

a high level of teacher-student interaction with opportunities for practice 

and feedback.

Recommendation 4. 

Monitor the progress of tier 2 

students at least once a month. Use 

these data to determine whether 

students still require intervention. 

For those students still making 

insufficient progress, schoolwide teams should design a tier 3 

intervention plan.

	Monitor progress of tier 2 students 

on a regular basis using grade appropriate measures. Progress monitoring should 

occur at least eight times during the school 

year. 

	While providing tier 2 instruction, use 

progress monitoring data to identify students needing additional instruction.

	Consider using progress monitoring 

data to regroup tier 2 students approximately every six weeks. 
Checklist for carrying out the recommendations

( 10 )

Recommendation 5. Provide intensive 

instruction on a daily basis that 

promotes the development of the 

various components of reading 

proficiency to students who show 

minimal progress after reasonable 

time in tier 2 small group instruction 

(tier 3).

	Implement concentrated instruction 

that is focused on a small but targeted set 

of reading skills.

	Adjust the overall lesson pace.

	Schedule multiple and extended instructional sessions daily.

	Include opportunities for extensive 

practice and high-quality feedback with 

one-on-one instruction.

	Plan and individualize tier 3 instruction using input from a school-based RtI 

team.

	Ensure that tier 3 students master a 

reading skill or strategy before moving on.
( 11 )

grades 1 and 2 to predict students’ reading performance in subsequent years.16

However, it should be cautioned that few of 

the samples used for validation adequately 

represent the U.S. population as required 

by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.17 The evidence base 

in kindergarten is weaker, especially for 

measures administered early in the school 

year.18 Thus, our recommendation for kindergarten and for grade 1 is to conduct a 

second screening mid-year when results 

tend to be more valid.19

Brief summary of evidence

The panel recommends a series of screening measures be employed to assess proficiency in several key areas (see Table 3). 

Five correlational studies have demonstrated that certain types of measures can 

be used to accurately predict future student 

performance.20 Tests conducted by the Assessment Committee (2002) demonstrate 

that these measures meet the standards for 

educational and psychological testing21 in 

terms of internal consistency and temporal 

16. Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Bryant (2006); McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001); O’Connor 

and Jenkins (1999); Scarborough (1998a); Fuchs, 

Fuchs, and Compton (2004); Speece, Mills, Ritchey, 

and Hillman (2003b). 

17. American Education Research Association, 

American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education 

(1999).

18. Jenkins and O’Connor (2002); O’Connor and 

Jenkins (1999); Scarborough (1998a); Torgesen 

(2002); Badian (1994); Catts (1991); Felton 

(1992).

19. Compton et al. (2006); Jenkins, Hudson, and 

Johnson (2007).

20. Compton et al. (2006); McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001); O’Connor and Jenkins 

(1999); Scarborough (1998a); Fuchs, Fuchs, and 

Compton (2004); Speece et al. (2003b). 

21. American Education Research Association, 

American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education 

(1999).

Recommendation 1. 

Screen all students 

for potential reading 

problems at the 

beginning of the 

year and again in the 

middle of the year. 

Regularly monitor the 

progress of students 

who are at elevated 

risk for developing 

reading disabilities.

Universal screening is a critical first 

step in identifying students who 

are at risk for experiencing reading 

difficulties and who might need more 

instruction. Screening should take 

place at the beginning of each school 

year in kindergarten through grade 

2. Schools should use measures that 

are efficient, reliable, and reasonably 

valid. For students who are at risk 

for reading difficulties, progress in 

reading and reading related-skills 

should be monitored on a monthly 

or even a weekly basis to determine 

whether students are making adequate 

progress or need additional support 

(see recommendation 4 for further 

detail). Because available screening 

measures, especially in kindergarten 

and grade 1, are imperfect, schools 

are encouraged to conduct a second 

screening mid-year.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

recommendation 1 to be moderate. This recommendation is based on a series of highquality correlational studies with replicated 

findings that show the ability of measures 

of reading proficiency administered in 
1. Screen all students for potential reading problems

( 12 )

stability.22 While the panel is not recommending which specific measure should be 

adopted in each school, the panel does recommend that students are screened with 

measures that have properties similar to 

those examined in these studies.

In our review of evidence, we detected 

problems with commonly used measures 

in terms of their ability to correctly identify children at low risk for experiencing 

problems (known as specificity). That is, 

the measures tend to consistently overidentify students as needing assistance.23 

We also noted a paucity of cross-validation 

studies.24 Nonetheless, the extensive body 

of replicated correlational research supports our conclusion that these are reasonable batteries of measures to use for early 

screening, particularly in grades 1 and 2. 

22. Coefficient alpha estimates are .84 for grade 1 

letter sound knowledge, .80 for grade 1 phoneme 

blending, and .85 and .83 for grade 1 and 2 word 

reading on the Texas Primary Reading Inventory 

(1999). Coefficient alpha estimates are .92 and 

.91 for 6 and 7 year old children on the elision 

measure and .89 and .86 for 6 and 7 year old 

children on the sound matching measure on the 

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing 

(Wagner, Torgeson, and Rashotte 1999). Alternate 

test-form and stability coefficients exceed .90 in 

grade 1 for the word identification fluency task 

(Compton et al. 2006). For the DIBELS measures 

alternative-form reliability estimate for grade 1 

letter naming fluency, .86 for grade 1 non-word 

fluency it is .83, and .90 for grade 2 oral reading 

fluency (Good and Kaminski 2003).

23. Foorman, Fletcher, Francis, Schatschneider, 

and Mehta (1998); O’Connor and Jenkins (1999); 

Jenkins and O’Connor (2002); McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001).

24. Compton et al. (2006); O’Connor and Jenkins 

(1999); Foorman et al. (1998).

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Create a building-level team to facilitate 

the implementation of universal screening 

and progress monitoring.

In the opinion of the panel, a building-level 

RtI team should focus on the logistics of implementing school-wide screening and subsequent progress monitoring, such as who 

administers the assessments, scheduling, 

and make-up testing, as well as substantive 

issues, such as determining the guidelines 

the school will use to determine which 

students require intervention and when 

students have demonstrated a successful 

response to tier 2 or tier 3 intervention. 

Although each school can develop its own 

benchmarks, it is more feasible, especially 

during the early phases of implementation, 

for schools to use guidelines from national 

databases (often available from publishers, 

from research literature, or on the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) Progress 

Monitoring and RtI websites25). 

2. Select a set of efficient screening measures 

that identify children at risk for poor reading 

outcomes with reasonable accuracy. 

As children develop, different aspects of 

reading or reading-related skills become 

most appropriate to use as screening measures. Table 3 highlights the skills most 

appropriate for each grade level. Some controversy remains about precisely which one 

skill is best to assess at each grade level. For 

that reason, we recommend the use of two 

screening measures at each juncture.

Table 3 also outlines some commonly 

used screening measures for kindergarten 

through grade 2 highlighting their focus, 

purpose, and limitations. The limitations 

are based on the opinion of the panel.26

25. See http://www.rti4success.org/ or http://

www.studentprogress.org/.
1. Screen all students for potential reading problems

( 13 )

Table 3. Recommended target areas for early screening and progress monitoring

Measures Recommended 

grade levels

Proficiencies 

assessed Purpose Limitations

Letter naming 

fluency

K–1 Letter name 

identification 

and the ability 

to rapidly 

retrieve abstract 

information

Screening This measure is poor for 

progress monitoring since 

students begin to learn to 

associate letters with sounds.

It is not valid for English 

learners in kindergarten, but 

seems valid for grade 1.

Phoneme 

Segmentation

K-1 Phonemic 

awareness

Screening 

and progress 

monitoring

This measure is problematic 

for measuring progress in 

the second semester of grade 

1. As students learn to read, 

they seem to focus less on 

phonemic skills and more on 

decoding strategies.

Nonsense word 

fluency

1 Proficiency and 

automaticity 

with basic 

phonics rule

Screening 

and progress 

monitoring

This measure is limited to 

only very simple words and 

does not tap the ability to 

read irregular words or multisyllabic words.

Word 

identification26

1–2 Word reading Screening 

and progress 

monitoring

This measure addresses many 

of the limitations of nonsense 

word fluency by including 

multisyllabic and irregular 

words.

Oral reading 

fluency

(also called 

passage reading 

fluency)

1–2 Reading connected text 

accurately and 

fluently

Screening 

and progress 

monitoring

Although the measure has 

moderately strong criterionrelated validity, it cannot give 

a full picture of students’ 

reading proficiency. Many students will score close to zero 

at the beginning of grade 1. 

The measure still is a reasonable predictor of end of year 

reading performance.

Source: Authors’ compilation based on Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba, Yen, Yang, Braun, and O’Connor (2001b), 

Speece et al. (2003b); Schatschneider (2006); O’Connor and Jenkins (1999); and Baker and Baker (2008) for letter 

naming fluency. For phoneme segmentation, O’Connor and Jenkins (1999). For nonsense word fluency, Speece et al. 

(2003b); Good, Simmons, and Kame’enui (2001). For word identification, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2004); Compton 

et al. (2006). For oral reading fluency, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, and Jenkins (2001a); Fuchs, Fuchs, and Maxwell (1988); 

Schatschneider (2006); Speece and Case (2001); Gersten, Dimino, and Jayanthi (2008); Baker, Gersten, Haager, and 

Dingle (2006). 

26. Fuchs et al. (2004); Compton et al. (2006)
1. Screen all students for potential reading problems

( 14 )

Kindergarten screening batteries should 

include measures assessing letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, and expressive and receptive vocabulary.27 Unfortunately, efficient screening measures for 

expressive and receptive vocabulary are in 

their infancy. 

As children move into grade 1, screening 

batteries should include measures assessing phonemic awareness, decoding, word 

identification, and text reading.28 By the 

second semester of grade 1 the decoding, word identification, and text reading 

should include speed as an outcome.29

Grade 2 batteries should include measures 

involving word reading and passage reading. These measures are typically timed. 

Despite the importance of vocabulary, language, and comprehension development 

in kindergarten through grade 2, very few 

research-validated measures are available 

for efficient screening purposes. But diagnostic measures can be administered 

to students who appear to demonstrate 

problems in this area. 

Technical characteristics to consider

The panel believes that three characteristics of screening measures should be examined when selecting which measures 

(and how many) will be used. 

Reliability of screening measures (usually 

reported as internal consistency reliability or Cronbach’s alpha) should be at least 

0.70.30 This information is available from 

the publishers’ manual or website for the 

measure. Soon this information will be 

posted on the websites for National Center 

27. Jenkins and O’Connor (2002); McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001); O’Connor and Jenkins 

(1999); Scarborough (1998a); Torgesen (2002).

28. Foorman et al. (1998).

29. Compton et al. (2006); Fuchs et al. (2004).

30. Nunnally (1978).

on Progress Monitoring and Response to 

Intervention.31

Predictive validity is an index of how well 

the measure provides accurate information on future reading performance of 

students—and thus is critical. In the opinion of the panel, predictive validity should 

reach an index of 0.60 or higher. 

Reducing the number of false positives

identified—students with scores below the 

cutoff who would eventually become good 

readers even without any additional help—

is a serious concern. False positives lead 

to schools providing services to students 

who do not need them. In the view of the 

panel, schools should collect information 

on the sensitivity of screening measures 

and adjust benchmarks that produce too 

many false positives. There is a tradeoff, 

however, with the specificity of the measure and its ability to correctly identify 

90 percent or more of students who really do require assistance.32 Using at least 

two screening measures can enhance the 

accuracy of the screening process; however, decision rules then become more 

complex.

Costs in both time and personnel should 

also be considered when selecting screening measures. Administering additional 

measures requires additional staff time 

and may displace instruction. Moreover, 

interpreting multiple indices can be a complex and time-consuming task. Schools 

should consider these factors when selecting the number and type of screening 

measures.

31. See http://www.rti4success.org/ or http://

www.studentprogress.org/.

32. Jenkins (2003). 
1. Screen all students for potential reading problems

( 15 )

3. Use benchmarks or growth rates (or a 

combination of the two) to identify children 

at low, moderate, or high risk for developing 

reading difficulties.33 

Use cut-points to distinguish between students likely to obtain satisfactory and unsatisfactory reading proficiency at the end 

of the year without additional assistance. 

Excellent sources for cut-points are any 

predictive validity studies conducted by 

test developers or researchers based on 

normative samples. Although each school 

district can develop its own benchmarks 

or cut-points, guidelines from national databases (often available from publishers, 

from research literature, or on the OSEP, 

Progress Monitoring, and RtI websites34) 

may be easier to adopt, particularly in the 

early phases of implementation. 

As schools become more sophisticated in 

their use of screening measures, many 

will want to go beyond using benchmark 

assessments two or three times a year and 

use a progress monitoring system.

Roadblocks and suggested 

approaches

Roadblock 1.1. It is too hard to establish 

district-specific benchmarks.

Suggested Approach. National benchmarks can assist with this process. It often 

takes a significant amount of time to establish district-specific benchmarks or standards. By the time district-specific benchmarks are established, a year could pass 

before at-risk readers are identified and 

appropriate instructional interventions 

begin. National standards are a reasonable 

alternative to establishing district-specific 

benchmarks. 

33. Schatschneider (2006).

34. See http://www.rti4success.org/ or http://

www.studentprogress.org/.

Roadblock 1.2. Universal screening falsely 

identifies too many students.

Suggested Approach. Selecting cut-points 

that accurately identify 100 percent of the 

children at risk casts a wide net—also identifying a sizeable group of children who 

will develop normal reading skills. We recommend using universal screening measures to liberally identify a pool of children that, through progress monitoring 

methods, can be further refined to those 

most at risk.35 Information on universal 

screening and progress monitoring measures can be found at the National Center 

on Student Progress Monitoring or the Iris 

Center at Vanderbilt University.36

Roadblock 1.3. Some students might get 

“stuck” in a particular tier.

Suggested Approach. If schools are responding to student performance data 

using decision rules, students should not 

get stuck. A student may stay in one tier 

because the instructional match and learning trajectory is appropriate. To ensure 

students are receiving the correct amount 

of instruction, schools should frequently 

reassess—allowing fluid movement across 

tiers. Response to each tier of instruction 

will vary by student, requiring students 

to move across tiers as a function of their 

response to instruction. The tiers are not 

standard, lock-step groupings of students. 

Decision rules should allow students showing adequate response to instruction at tier 

2 or tier 3 to transition back into lower 

tiers with the support they need for continued success. 

35. Compton et al. (2006).

36. See http://www.studentprogress.org/ or 

http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/. 
1. Screen all students for potential reading problems

( 16 )

Roadblock 1.4. Some teachers place students in tutoring when they are only one 

point below the benchmark.

Suggested Approach. No measure is perfectly reliable. Keep this in mind when students’ scores fall slightly below or above a 

cutoff score on a benchmark test. The panel 

recommends that districts and schools review the assessment’s technical manual 

to determine the confidence interval for 

each benchmark score. If a students’ score 

falls within the confidence interval, either 

conduct an additional assessment of those 

students or monitor their progress for a 

period of six weeks to determine whether 

the student does, in fact, require additional assistance.37

37. Francis et al. (2005).
( 17 )

Recommendation 2. 

Provide differentiated 

reading instruction 

for all students based 

on assessments of 

students’ current 

reading levels (tier 1). 

Ideally, classroom reading instruction 

would be evidence based. However, 

research that might provide a clear, 

comprehensive model of how to teach 

reading to students in the primary 

grades is lacking.38 The purpose of this 

recommendation is to discuss classroom 

reading instruction as it relates to 

RtI and effective tier 1 instruction. 

In particular, we focus on the use of 

assessment data to guide differentiated 

reading instruction. Tier 1 provides the 

foundation for successful RtI overall, 

without which too many students would 

fall below benchmarks. 

The panel recommends differentiating 

instruction in tier 1. For example, 

during independent work time, 

students weak in vocabulary can 

practice vocabulary with a partner or 

in small groups, while other students 

form teams to brainstorm character 

traits and motivations for the main 

characters in the story they are reading 

that week. Data from the various 

screening and progress monitoring 

measures in recommendation 1 should 

also serve a role in orchestrating 

differentiated instruction. 

Because differentiated instruction 

under tier 1 requires identifying and 

grouping students to work on targeted 

38. National Reading Panel (2000).

skills, readers may wonder where 

differentiated instruction ends and tier 

2 intervention begins. Differentiated 

instruction applies to all students, while 

tier 2 instruction applies only to those 

at risk in key areas. The panel believes 

that, to be effective, a multi-tier 

approach can blur the lines between 

tier 1 and tier 2, and that sensible datadriven instruction should permeate all 

of the tiers of reading instruction.

Level of evidence: Low

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as low. A correlational study demonstrated that the more 

teachers used assessment information, the 

greater their students’ reading skill growth 

in grade 1.39

Brief summary of evidence

One descriptive-correlational study examined how student reading growth varied by 

the degree to which teachers employed a 

specific differentiation program. This differentiation program relied on assessments 

to group students. Student reading growth 

was higher for teachers who implemented 

the program with greater fidelity.

How to carry out this 

recommendation 

1. Provide training for teachers on how to 

collect and interpret student data on reading efficiently and reliably.

Provide training on how to use diagnostic measures, especially measures for 

those students experiencing difficulty. 

Informal assessments can help educators 

make better informed decisions. For example, listening to how a student reads a 

text that is slightly too difficult can yield 

39. Connor, Piasta, Fishman, Glasney, Schatschneider, Crowe, Underwood, and Morrison 

(2009).
Recommendation 2. Provide differentiated reading instruction for all students

( 18 )

useful information and is easily embedded 

within lessons. Teachers can ask a student 

to summarize a story they just read. This 

exercise will reveal how well the student 

comprehends what they read. Listening to 

the student’s summary of the story can 

also reveal other information—for example about the student’s own life or what 

they know of other books.40

2. Develop data-driven decision rules for providing differentiated instruction to students 

at varied reading proficiency levels for part 

of the day.

According to the panel, independent silent reading activities should be gradually increased as reading skills improve. 

Data on student performance (a measure 

of word identification fluency or fluency 

in reading connected text) should inform 

this decision. For many grade 1 students, 

independent silent reading time would be 

minimal during the first few months of the 

year. Student-managed activities should 

be introduced gradually and should focus 

only on skills students have mastered.

3. Differentiate instruction—including varying 

time, content, and degree of support and scaffolding—based on students’ assessed skills.

The panel believes that as students fall 

below grade expectations, more time in explicit instruction provided by the teacher in 

small groups is critical to bring their skills 

to grade level. The panel suggests independent or group work, such as independent 

silent reading or buddy reading, are more 

effective when they are gradually increased 

as student reading skills improve.

40. Snow (2001).

Roadblocks and suggested 

approaches

Roadblock 2.1. It is difficult for teachers to interpret assessment results and 

subsequently use the information for 

instruction. 

Suggested Approach. The panel recommends providing professional development focused on how to administer assessments, interpret the results, and use 

the information. This should be ongoing. 

With proper training, teachers’ instruction 

may be more effective.

Roadblock 2.2. Using multiple small 

groups is difficult when some children have 

difficulty paying attention, working independently, and interacting with peers. 

Suggested Approach. Classroom management procedures should be firmly in 

place during reading instruction. To facilitate effective reading instruction, administrators should provide teachers with supportive efforts and motivational strategies, 

especially in managing independent and 

small group work. 
( 19 )

Recommendation 3. 

Provide intensive, 

systematic instruction 

on up to three 

foundational reading 

skills in small groups 

to students who score 

below the benchmark 

on universal screening. 

Typically, these 

groups meet between 

three and five times 

a week for 20 to 40 

minutes (tier 2).

Tier 2 instruction should take place 

in small homogenous groups ranging 

from three to four students using 

curricula that address the major 

components of reading instruction 

(comprehension, fluency, phonemic 

awareness, phonics, and vocabulary). 

The areas of instruction are based 

on the results of students’ scores on 

universal screening. Instruction should 

be systematic—building skills gradually 

and introducing skills first in isolation 

and then integrating them with other 

skills. Explicit instruction involves more 

teacher-student interaction, including 

frequent opportunities for student 

practice and comprehensible and 

specific feedback. Intensive instruction 

should occur three to five times per 

week for 20 to 40 minutes.

Level of evidence: Strong

The panel judged the evidence supporting this recommendation as strong based 

on 11 studies that met WWC standards 

or that met WWC standards with reservations.41 These studies on supplemental instruction in reading support tier 2 

intervention as a way to improve reading performance in decoding. Six studies 

showed positive effects on decoding,42

and four showed effects on both decoding 

and reading comprehension.43 Six studies 

involved one-on-one instruction,44 and 

the remainder used small groups ranging from two to five students. Given that 

effect sizes were not significantly higher 

for the one-on-one approach, small group 

work could be considered more practical 

for implementation. 

Brief summary of evidence 

The 11 studies that met WWC standards or 

that met WWC standards with reservations 

suggest that educators should emphasize 

the critical reading skills of phonemic 

awareness, decoding, reading comprehension, and fluency at appropriate grade 

levels. Two of five studies that measured 

phonemic awareness demonstrated significant effects.45 Five of nine studies that 

measured decoding demonstrated significant effects, and students showed positive 

41. Ebaugh (2000); Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, 

and Ary (2000); Mathes, Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, Francis, and Schatschneider (2005); Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, and Vadasy (2004); Lennon 

and Slesinski (1999); Vaughn, Mathes, LinanThompson, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, 

Cardenas-Hagan, and Francis (2006); Vadasy, 

Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, and Gross (2007); Gibbs (2001); McMaster, 

Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2005); Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, and O’Connor (1997).

42. Ebaugh (2000); Gunn et al. (2000); Jenkins 

et al. (2004); Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Vaughn et al. 

(2006).

43. Gunn et al. (2000); Jenkins et al. (2004); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Vaughn et al. 

(2006).

44. Gunn et al. (2000); McMaster et al. (2005); Vadasy et al. (1997); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton 

(2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); Gibbs (2001).

45. Ehri et al. (2007); Lennon and Sleskinski 

(1999).
3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills

( 20 )

effects in five of seven studies46 that measured reading comprehension. Only one 

study found significant effects in reading 

fluency. Vocabulary was the least examined outcome of the 11 studies, with only 

1 study measuring and finding effects on 

vocabulary knowledge.47

Since 7 of the 11 studies that met WWC 

standards or that met standards with reservations produced a significant effect 

on at least one reading outcome, and all 

seven studies used explicit instruction, 

we concluded that explicit instruction 

is an effective approach to use in tier 2 

intervention.48 

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Use a curriculum that addresses the components of reading instruction (phonemic 

awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency) and relates to students’ 

needs and developmental level.

Tier 2 intervention curricula are sometimes called standard protocols. Standard 

protocols are tutoring programs taught to 

all students scoring below benchmark.49

These “one size fits all” programs address 

foundational skills and strategies that are 

essential to learning to read. The panel 

suggests that schools should use intervention programs to provide tier 2 instruction 

for all students scoring below benchmark 

for at least five weeks to discern which 

46. Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); Vaughn et al. (2006); Ehri et 

al. (2007).

47. Gunn et al. (2000).

48. Gunn et al. (2000); Jenkins et al. (2004); Ehri 

et al. (2007); Ebaugh (2000); Vadasy, Sanders, and 

Peyton (2005); Vaughn et al. (2006).

49. There are some obvious exceptions, such 

as students already identified as students with 

significant cognitive disabilities, students who 

already have Individualized Education Programs 

in reading or language involving a much more 

basic curriculum.

students may need further intervention. 

After five weeks, some students may have 

caught up. 

In choosing an intervention program for 

tier 2, administrators should look for 

programs—either commercially available intervention curricula, commercially 

developed supplemental curricula, or 

intervention programs—that are compatible with their school’s core reading 

program and that provide intensive small 

group instruction in three to four foundational skills. Ideally, the intervention program has demonstrated its effectiveness 

through independent evaluations using 

rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental designs. 

The intervention curriculum should teach 

and build foundational skills to mastery 

and incorporate some complex reading 

skills. Specific components vary by grade 

level and reflect the changing developmental emphasis at different stages in reading. 

Table 4 highlights the foundational reading skills students should develop in kindergarten through grade 2. Skills validated 

by research are indicated by table notes. 

The remaining skill areas are considered 

critical by the panel.

The critical skill for kindergarteners to 

master is the ability to segment phonemes, 

a key indicator of future success or failure 

in reading.50 Also important are lettersound identification, the alphabetic principle (the recognition of the relationship 

between spoken sounds and letters), and 

beginning decoding skills (blending written letters into words). Students who can 

perform these tasks understand the phonemic elements in words leading to accurate and fluent decoding.51

In general, during the first semester, 

grade 1 students who participate in tier 2 

50. Lennon and Slesinski (1999).

51. Gunn et al. (2000).
3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills

( 21 )

interventions will need instruction in phonics (decoding one and then two syllable 

words) and fluency. Since these are beginning readers, fluency instruction during the first semester is taught by first 

focusing on fluently and accurately reading short lists of high frequency words. 

During the second semester, as students 

move into reading connected text, interventions focusing on reading accurately, 

fluently, and with prosody (proper expression) should be added. Some grade 

1 students will still need intensive and 

usually more accelerated instruction in 

phonemic awareness (blending and segmenting sounds) and basic phonics (letter 

sound correspondence) interventions to 

increase their understanding of the alphabetic principle.52

52. Gunn et al. (2000); McMaster et al. (2005); 

Jenkins et al. (2004); Vaughn et al. (2006); Ehri 

et al. (2007).

Phonics interventions for grade 2 students 

concentrate on learning more difficult 

skills, such as digraphs (oa as in boat and 

ch as in child), diphthongs (ew as in stew, 

oi as in soil), and controlled R (ar as in 

car, ur as in fur). These interventions address structural analysis skills that focus 

on prefixes, suffixes, forming plurals, and 

adding -ed and -ing to form past and progressive tenses. Students also apply phonetic skills to words with more than one 

syllable. Fluency should continue to be 

emphasized.53

Some intervention curricula will include 

what the panel believes are important activities: literal comprehension (questions 

whose answers are stated in the text), more 

sophisticated comprehension strategies 

(summarizing a portion of text), listening 

comprehension strategies, spelling, ex53. Gunn et al. (2000).

Table 4. Foundational reading skills in grades K–2

Grade Skill

Kindergarten Phonemic awarenessa

Letter soundsb

Listening comprehension

Vocabulary development

Grade 1 Phonemic awarenessc

Phonicsd

Fluency (high frequency words)

Fluency with connected text (second half of the year)e

Vocabularyf

Comprehensiong

Grade 2 Phonicsh

Fluency with connected text

Vocabularyi

Comprehension

a. Lennon and Slesinski (1999).

b. Lennon and Slesinski (1999).

c. Ehri et al. (2007).

d. Gunn et al. (2000); Jenkins et al. (2004); Ehri et al. (2007); Mathes et al. (2005); Vadasy, Sanders, 

and Peyton (2005).

e. Ehri et al. (2007).

f. Gunn et al. (2000).

g. Jenkins et al. (2004); Ehri et al. (2007); Mathes et al. (2005); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); 

Vaughn et al. (2006).

h. Gunn et al. (2000).

i. Gunn et al. (2000).

Source: Authors’ compilation based on information described in the text. 
3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills

( 22 )

pressive writing, and read-alouds. Literal 

comprehension and some rudimentary 

comprehension instruction occur in many 

of the successful interventions, and so are 

recommended.54 Other elements, such as 

inferential comprehension and vocabulary 

development, may be better developed 

with more heterogeneous groups during 

the reading language arts block. It is the 

opinion of the panel that an intervention 

curriculum that covers five to six skills per 

day may not provide the intensity necessary to improve reading achievement. 

2. Implement this program three to five 

times a week, for approximately 20 to 40 

minutes. 

Tier 2 instruction should be implemented 

for 20 to 40 minutes, three to five times 

per week in small groups of three to four 

students. Student grade level and needs 

should determine the duration. 

An intervention session can range from 20 

to 30 minutes for kindergarten students 

to 40 to 50 minutes for grade 2 students, 

depending on student needs. Providing 

kindergarten students with 20 minutes of 

daily instruction has been demonstrated 

to have a positive impact on their acquisition of early reading skills, such as phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence.55 As students move into grades 

1 and 2, the time needed for interventions 

usually increases as the skills they need 

to catch up to their peers without reading 

difficulties broaden. 

A small body of descriptive evidence suggests that the time spent on each area of 

instruction might be more important than 

the total instructional time. How time is 

spent and proportioned appears critical. 

For example, merely doubling instructional time—providing double doses of 

54. Vaughn et al. (2006); Gunn et al. (2000).

55. Gunn et al. (2000); Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, 

and Black (2002); Lennon and Slesinski (1999).

the same intervention—is not effective.56

But according to Harn, Linan-Thompson, 

and Roberts (2008), doubling instructional 

time while changing the percentage of 

time allotted to each instructional area 

in response to students’ changing needs 

resulted in better outcomes on timed oral 

reading fluency and word reading measures for students.

3. Build skills gradually and provide a high 

level of teacher-student interaction with opportunities for practice and feedback.

Reading instruction should be systematic—building skills gradually and introducing skills first in isolation and then by 

integrating them with other skills to provide students practice and to build generalization.57 Students should be given 

clear, corrective feedback, and cumulative review to ensure understanding and 

mastery. For example, in phonics, a critical 

area in grade 1 tier 2 interventions, a systematic curriculum might begin by introducing a few of the most frequently used 

consonants sounds (m, s, t, b) followed by 

a vowel, usually the short a. This allows 

students to integrate these newly learned 

sounds by blending sounds into words. 

Reading instruction should also be explicit. Explicit instruction involves a high 

level of teacher-student interaction that 

includes frequent opportunities for students to practice the skill and clear, specific corrective feedback. It begins with 

overt and unambiguous explanations and 

models. An important feature of explicit 

instruction is making the thinking process 

public. Thinking aloud should occur during all instructional components of tier 

2 interventions ranging from systematic 

skill building in phonics to teaching more 

56. Wanzek and Vaughn (2007).

57. Gunn et al. (2002); Vadasy, Sanders, and 

Peyton (2005); Vaughn et al. (2006); Mathes et 

al. (2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); McMaster et al. 

(2005).
3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational reading skills

( 23 )

complex and intricate comprehension 

strategies (such as summarizing or making 

inferences). When thinking aloud, teachers 

should stop, reflect, and formulate an explanation of their thinking processes.

Roadblocks and suggested 

approaches

Roadblock 3.1. Some teachers or reading specialists might worry about aligning 

the tier 2 intervention program with the 

core program. 

Suggested Approach. Since tier 2 instruction relies on foundational (and 

sometimes prerequisite) skills that are 

determined by the students’ rate of progress, it is unlikely that the same skill will 

be addressed in the core reading instruction at the same time. Alignment is not 

as critical as ensuring that instruction is 

systematic and explicit and focuses on the 

high priority reading components. 

Roadblock 3.2. Finding an additional 15 

to 50 minutes a day for additional reading 

instruction can be a daunting task. 

Suggested Approach. Schools should 

first determine who will provide the intervention. If the classroom teacher will 

provide the intervention, then small group 

instruction could occur when students 

are working independently at classroom 

learning centers. In grade 2 classrooms, 

where there is non-direct instructional 

time, intervention lessons can occur at 

times that do not conflict with other critical content areas, such as mathematics, 

particularly if a person other than the 

classroom teacher is providing the intervention. There may be situations in 

schools with reading blocks of two to two 

and a half hours where it is appropriate 

for students to work at learning stations or 

complete assignments while the classroom 

teacher is conducting tier 2 interventions, 

especially if tier 2 students are unable to 

complete these assignments.
( 24 )

Recommendation 4. 

Monitor the progress 

of tier 2 students at 

least once a month. Use 

these data to determine 

whether students still 

require intervention. 

For those students still 

making insufficient 

progress, school-wide 

teams should design a 

tier 3 intervention plan.

Schools should establish a schedule 

to assess tier 2 students at least 

monthly—reassigning students who 

have met benchmarks, graphing 

students’ progress in reading in a 

reliable fashion, and regrouping 

students who need continued 

instructional support.58

Level of evidence: Low

Of the 11 randomized controlled trials and 

quasi-experimental design studies that 

evaluated effects of tier 2 interventions 

and that met WWC standards or that met 

WWC standards with reservations, only 3 

reported using mastery checks or progress monitoring in instructional decisionmaking.59 None of the studies demonstrate 

that progress monitoring is essential in 

tier 2 instruction. However, in the opinion 

of the panel, awareness of tier 2 student 

progress is essential for understanding 

whether tier 2 is helping the students and 

whether modifications are needed.

58. Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman 

(2003).

59. McMaster et al. (2005); Vaughn et al. (2006); 

Mathes et al. (2005).

Brief summary of evidence

Studies show that progress monitoring 

in reading (oral reading fluency or word 

identification fluency in grades 1 and 2) 

increases teachers’ awareness of students’ 

current level of reading proficiency and 

has a positive effect on the instructional 

decisions teachers make.60 Collecting and 

using progress monitoring data is sometimes a component of tier 2 instruction. 

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Monitor progress of tier 2 students on a 

regular basis using grade appropriate measures. Monitoring of progress should occur 

at least eight times during the school year. 

Some researchers recommend more frequent weekly assessments for monitoring 

student progress.61 However, little evidence 

demonstrates that weekly measures are superior to monthly ones.62 Many tier 2 intervention programs (commercially developed, 

researcher developed, or district developed) 

contain weekly mastery tests that educators 

can use to guide instruction (to know which 

skills need to be reviewed and re-taught). 

If a tier 2 program does not include mastery checks, monitor students’ progress 

weekly, if possible, but no less than once 

a month. The measures should be efficient, reliable, and valid. Many progress 

monitoring measures are also useful as 

screening measures (see recommendation 1). Progress monitoring measures are 

the best way to assess students’ retention 

of material taught and thus their path to 

reading proficiency. Table 5 indicates appropriate progress monitoring measures 

for kindergarten through grade 2.

60. Fuchs, Deno, and Mirkin (1984); Fuchs, Fuchs, 

and Hamlett (1989a)

61. Fuchs, Deno, and Mirkin (1984); Fuchs, Fuchs, 

and Hamlett (1989a).

62. Johnson et al. (in press).
4. Monitor the progress of tier 2 students at least once a month

( 25 )

2. While providing tier 2 instruction, use 

progress monitoring data to identify students needing additional instruction.

It is important that tier 2 instruction advances at a good pace. At the same time, 

teaching to mastery is paramount since 

the skills are foundational for future success in reading. If three students are making progress and one student is lagging 

behind, an option to consider is to provide 

this student with 10 minutes of review, 

practice, and additional focused instruction on material previously taught. If none 

of the students are making progress, take 

a careful look at the tier 2 intervention—

it may be missing critical components or 

moving too fast for the students in tier 2 

to master the target skills.

3. Consider using progress monitoring data 

to regroup tier 2 students approximately 

every six weeks.

Since students’ skill level changes over 

time and in varying degrees, use progress monitoring data to regroup students 

so that the groups are as homogeneous as 

possible. Ideally, groups may cut across 

more than one class, if schedules permit.

Roadblocks and suggested 

approaches

Roadblock 4.1. Students within classes 

are at very different levels for tier 2 

intervention.

Suggested Approach. If students within 

a class are at such diverse levels as to 

necessitate more than two tier 2 groups, 

consider grouping students across classes. 

This will facilitate clustering children with 

similar needs. In such a case a reading specialist, paraprofessional, or other school 

personnel who have received training can 

conduct the intervention.

Roadblock 4.2. There is insufficient 

time for teachers to implement progress 

monitoring.

Suggested Approach. If teachers are too 

busy to assess students’ progress with 

progress monitoring measures, consider 

using paraprofessionals or other school 

staff. Train them how to administer such 

measures.

Table 5. Progress monitoring measures in grades K–2

Grade Measure

Kindergarten Phonemic awareness measures (especially measures of phoneme 

segmentation)

Grade 1 Fluent word recognition

Nonword (pseudo word reading)

Oral reading fluency (connected text)

Grade 2 Fluent word recognition

Oral reading fluency

Source: Authors’ compilation based on information described in text.
( 26 )

Recommendation 5. 

Provide intensive 

instruction on a daily 

basis that promotes 

the development of the 

various components 

of reading proficiency 

to students who show 

minimal progress 

after reasonable time 

in tier 2 small group 

instruction (tier 3).

Instruction should be intensified by 

focusing on fewer high priority reading 

skills during lessons and scheduling 

multiple and extended instructional 

sessions. One-on-one or small group 

instruction also provides intensity as 

students have more opportunities to 

practice and respond. One-on-one 

instruction includes giving students 

feedback based on their individual 

responses, teaching students to 

mastery based on individual learning 

progress, and planning instruction with 

materials and an instructional sequence 

that meets individual student needs.

There is no reason to believe that a 

tier 3 program should consist primarily 

of one-on-one instruction—though 

such instruction should be part of 

a student’s daily program. Student 

progress should be monitored regularly 

using progress monitoring measures 

to assess whether the program is on 

course and to determine whether a 

team of professionals needs to refine 

the instructional program to enhance 

achievement growth. 

Level of evidence: Low

The level of evidence for this recommendation is low. Although the panel found 

five studies on this recommendation that 

met the WWC standards (or met standards 

with reservations), no studies reported 

statistically significant impacts on reading outcomes.63

Brief summary of evidence

Despite over 50 years of research on special education and remedial instruction, 

major gaps persist in the knowledge of 

how to teach reading to the 3 to 5 percent 

of students with the most severe reading 

difficulties.64 The research reveals little 

about students whose response to typically effective interventions is low. Therefore, the material below represents the 

opinion of the panel. 

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Implement concentrated instruction that 

is focused on a small but targeted set of 

reading skills.

Focusing on a small set of reading or reading-related skills is essential to tier 3 in 

kindergarten through grade 2 because 

having too many instructional objectives 

for struggling readers makes it more difficult to learn the skills well enough for 

proficient reading. 65 In the opinion of the 

panel, too many instructional objectives 

can overwhelm students. Achieving proficiency is also difficult for students when 

instruction is scattered across different 

aspects of reading. 

63. McMaster et al. (2005); Foorman et al. (1998); 

Blumsack (1996); Gillon (2000); O’Connor and 

Jenkins (1995).

64. Torgesen, Wagner, and Rashotte (1997).

65. Blumsack (1996); Foorman et al. (1998); Gillon (2000).
5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes reading proficiency

( 27 )

Diagnostic assessments can help determine why a reading problem is occurring 

and which reading skills or performance 

deficits need to be addressed to improve 

reading performance. Specifically, educators can ask: what aspects of reading are 

blocking the student from achieving reading proficiency? When these obstacles are 

determined, high priority skills are identified as the focus of tier 3 instruction.

For example, the panel believes that if a 

student is struggling with decoding, it does 

not make sense to use tier 3 instructional 

time for summary writing, comprehension 

monitoring instruction, or clarification 

strategies because the primary reading 

obstacle for the student is sounding out 

and reading words accurately. Here, decoding is considered a high priority skill 

because it underlies the student’s overall 

reading difficulty. 

Additionally, the panel believes that there 

should be depth in modeling and practice 

with feedback in tier 3 instruction—perhaps requiring limited breadth. Such focus 

provides opportunities to review, practice, 

and reinforce newly learned proficiencies so that students can demonstrate 

sustained and consistent levels of proficiency across lessons. Often a sustained 

90 percent or higher criterion of correct 

responses on taught material is considered mastery. 

Tier 3 instruction often focuses on phonemic awareness and decoding, especially for younger students or those with 

very limited reading proficiency. However, 

comprehension and vocabulary are also 

critical.66 For a student receiving tier 3 

instruction, several sessions each week 

might focus on phonemic awareness and 

decoding in depth. The other sessions 

might focus on comprehension and vocabulary in depth. To date, there are no 

clear-cut empirical guidelines to deter66. National Reading Panel (2000).

mine how to balance competing demands 

for instructional time. 

2. Adjust the overall lesson pace.

To provide greater focus to tier 3 instruction, teachers can adjust the overall lesson 

pace so that it is slow and deliberate (that 

is, more intensive). Teachers implementing tier 3 instruction can focus the pace 

of lessons by focusing on a single component of a lesson. For example, teachers 

might focus only on introducing the new 

skill rather than implementing a full lesson that includes introduction, extended 

practice, and application. Subsequent tier 

3 instruction might review the new skills 

(with modified or shortened instruction 

from the lesson’s introduction) and practice the new skills. Instructional pace is 

slowed and focused by implementing a 

series of lessons concentrating only on a 

variety of review and practice activities. 

Rather than practicing how to identify the 

main idea in one lesson, several lessons 

would practice identifying the main idea. 

3. Schedule multiple and extended instructional sessions daily.

While research does not suggest a specific 

number of intervention sessions or duration of instructional intervention (such as 

weeks, months, or years) for tier 3, studies do suggest that students needing tier 

3 intervention require more reading instructional time than their peers without 

reading difficulties. On average, students 

participating in tier 3 interventions receive 

an additional 75 minutes of instruction per 

week. Additional instructional time ranges 

from about 45 minutes per week67 to 120 

minutes per week.68

In the opinion of the panel, schools could 

provide an additional 30 minutes of instruction by creating a “double dose” of 

67. Blumsack (1996).

68. Gillon (2000).
5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes reading proficiency

( 28 )

reading time for struggling readers. Rather 

than more of the same, a double dose of 

instruction means a teacher might introduce skills during the first session and 

then re-teach with added practice during 

the second.

Duration, or extended implementation of 

tier 3 intervention, also intensifies instruction. Further research is required to examine the total hours of instruction needed 

and relative impact of tier 3 duration.

4. Include opportunities for extensive practice and high quality feedback with one-onone instruction. 

To become proficient in the application of 

newly acquired skills and strategies, students with the most intensive instructional 

needs will need multiple opportunities 

to practice with immediate high-quality 

feedback. According to panel opinion, tier 

3 students might require 10 or 30 times 

as many practice opportunities as their 

peers. An example considered by the panel 

includes the use of technology for aspects 

of the reading program. Technology can 

be a good means for students to receive 

the practice they need, such as practice in 

letter sound recognition.69

One-on-one instruction is an effective way 

to maximize practice during tier 3 instruction. If scheduling one-on-one instructional sessions is not possible, the panel 

suggests students be organized in small 

groups of homogenous reading needs. 

One-on-one or small-group instruction 

provides the greatest opportunity for continuous and active learning. For example, 

in whole-class instruction, individual students have few opportunities to respond, 

practice, and interact with the teacher. 

Meanwhile in one-on-one instruction, a 

student has many occasions to respond 

69. Barker and Torgesen (1995); Chambless 

and Chambless (1994); National Reading Panel 

(2000).

and practice. When working with small 

groups, educators can increase opportunities to respond and practice by encouraging unison group responses.

With one-on-one and small-group instruction, teachers can also provide immediate and individualized feedback.70 A key 

feature of instructional feedback is error 

correction. By correcting student errors 

when they are first made, it is much less 

likely that errors will become internalized 

and therefore repeated. For example, if a 

student incorrectly segmented a word, 

the teacher could model the accurate response, give the student another opportunity to segment the word, and return 

to the missed word later in the lesson to 

reinforce the correct application of the 

skill. This type of ongoing, guided practice 

provides students with the support and 

feedback they need to become fluent with 

critical reading skills and strategies.

5. Plan and individualize tier 3 instruction 

using input from a school-based RtI team. 

In the opinion of the panel, tier 3 instructional planning requires an increased level 

of detail because of the individualized 

nature of the instruction and particular 

student reading needs. Students with intensive reading needs require substantial 

supports during the initial stages of learning. As students progress in their understanding and knowledge, these supports 

are gradually withdrawn so that students 

can begin to apply skills and strategies 

independently.71 For students with learning disabilities, instruction that is carefully scaffolded is essential to successful learning.72 Teachers should introduce 

concepts and skills beginning with easier 

tasks and progressing to more difficult 

70. Blumsack (1996); Gillon (2000); McMaster et 

al. (2005); O’Connor and Jenkins (1995).

71. Blumsack (1996); Foorman et al. (1998); Gillon 

(2000); O’Connor and Jenkins (1995).

72. Swanson, Hoskyn, and Lee (1999). 
5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes reading proficiency

( 29 )

tasks.73 When teaching oral segmenting, 

for example, it is easier for students to 

isolate the first sound than to completely 

segment the word. 

Material supports also play a role in individualizing student learning. Graphic 

organizers, procedural facilitators (like 

color-coded question cards representing 

questions to ask before, during, and after 

reading), and concrete manipulatives are 

all visual prompts or reminders that provide support to struggling readers as they 

internalize skills and strategies. For example, a story map can be used to teach students how to identify a story’s critical components. As students become more adept 

at applying segmentation skills or using a 

story map to aid retelling, these material 

prompts are progressively faded out.

Teachers can optimize limited instructional time and instruction by teaching 

skills or strategies that reinforce each 

other. For example, emerging research 

suggests that teaching spelling promotes 

reading for struggling readers.74 Students 

see spellings as maps of phonemic content rather than an arbitrary sequence of 

letters. Practice in using the alphabetic 

strategy to spell words seems to transfer 

to reading words.

6. Ensure that tier 3 students master a reading skill or strategy before moving on.

Emerging research on tier 3 instruction 

focuses on individualizing instruction 

by teaching students to mastery. Before 

a student moves to the next lesson, skill, 

or activity, they must demonstrate that a 

reading skill or strategy is mastered. When 

teaching a series of phonemic awareness 

activities,75 teachers should discontinue 

73. Blumsack (1996); Foorman et al. (1998); Gillon (2000); McMaster et al. (2005); O’Connor and 

Jenkins (1995).

74. O’Connor and Jenkins (1995).

75. Gillon (2000).

activities when a student reaches 100 

percent accuracy on all of the items in 

the activity. Teachers can keep notes or 

records about how students perform on 

different reading tasks. For example, a 

teacher could record the exact words that 

a student practices reading, the student’s 

word reading accuracy, and the number 

of times it takes for students to practice a 

word before reading it accurately.76

Roadblocks and suggested 

approaches

Roadblock 5.1. The distinction between 

tier 2 and tier 3 instructional interventions 

can often be blurry.

Suggested Approach. Teachers should 

not be too concerned about tier 2 and tier 

3 differences; the tiers are merely a way 

to continually vary resources to match the 

nature and intensity of instructional need. 

Remember that at present, distinctions between tier 2 and tier 3 are not clear or well 

documented. The terms are conveniences 

for school personnel. 

Many tier 3 students will also have tier 

1 and tier 2 instruction as part of their 

reading program. A student receiving tier 

3 instruction focused on decoding and fluency might also participate in a tier 2 heterogeneous group focused on vocabulary 

and comprehension. One limitation with 

individualized, one-on-one tier 3 instruction is that there are few opportunities 

for students to engage in comprehensionbuilding discourse. Increasing comprehension through discourse requires different 

levels of student language, vocabulary, 

and comprehension skills. Small, heterogeneous groups are optimal for building 

student language and vocabulary because 

students have opportunities to hear different language examples, new vocabulary 

words, and content that helps connect understanding. Discourse-based vocabulary 

76. O’Connor and Jenkins (1995).
5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes reading proficiency

( 30 )

and comprehension activities are often 

included in tier 2 interventions.

Roadblock 5.2. Because most tier 3 students have problems with decoding and 

fluently reading connected text, some may 

have tier 3 interventions that only highlight 

these areas. 

Suggested Approach. Targeting important comprehension proficiencies (summarizing, use of story grammar elements, 

vocabulary development, listening comprehension development) need to be part 

of any solid tier 3 intervention.

Roadblock 5.3. School and staff resources 

are often too limited to support individualized instruction for tier 3 students.

Suggested Approach. Consider creative 

alternatives for school and staff resources. 

For example, use community resources, 

such as parent or senior citizen volunteers, 

to help reinforce tier 3 instruction. While 

an experienced teacher or interventionist 

should teach new skills, volunteers can 

help reinforce and practice reading in focused one-on-one sessions. Community 

tutoring programs are also options. Technology is another resource to consider, 

and remember many individualized instruction activities work well with small, 

homogeneous group instruction.

Roadblock 5.4. Schools tend to give the 

least experienced teachers the toughest-toteach students.

Suggested Approach. Reevaluate school 

schedules to ensure that the more experienced teachers or specialists are teaching tier 3 instruction. This may require 

some professional development and ongoing mentoring even for skilled veteran 

teachers.

Many teachers do not have the training to 

teach students with intensive reading difficulties. Given the importance of carefully 

planning and individualizing instruction, 

scaffolding skill introduction, enhancing 

one reading skill or strategy with another 

(such as adding spelling to reading instruction), structuring multiple practice 

opportunities, and providing high quality 

feedback with consistent error corrections, 

professional development plans and ongoing mentoring should focus on the details 

of instructional design and planning. 

Roadblock 5.5. Adding multiple and extended instructional sessions to a daily 

schedule can be overwhelming for some 

students and a challenge for schools in 

terms of scheduling. 

Suggested Approach. If a student requires an additional hour of instruction 

per day, teachers should consider breaking that hour into smaller instructional 

sessions or using several short activities 

to help maintain student motivation and 

engagement.77 One session could focus 

on decoding, and the follow-up on comprehension and vocabulary. The morning 

session could introduce new word reading 

skills, and the afternoon session practice 

and review. 

Early reading provides critical foundational skills; such skills and strategies 

need to be proficient before students enter 

the upper elementary grades. Thus, if critical decisions need to be made about adding tier 3 instruction to a student’s reading 

program, using time typically allocated 

to social studies or science may be necessary. Other less intrusive scheduling options include providing tier 3 instruction 

to struggling readers while other students 

are participating in center activities, independent projects, or the tier 1 “add-on” 

enrichment activities. Tier 3 instruction 

could also be provided during whole-class 

spelling instruction. 

77. Gillon (2000).
5. Provide intensive instruction on a daily basis that promotes reading proficiency

( 31 )

Roadblock 5.6. Some students who require 

tier 3 instruction do not catch-up despite 

intensive, one-on-one instruction.

Suggested Approach. Remind school 

staff that a school’s goal is to help each 

student reach proficient reading levels if at 

all possible. Obtaining significant progress 

toward reading proficiency should be the 

primary goal. Emphasize that the teaching 

process should involve more than merely 

providing students with an opportunity to 

demonstrate the reading skills that they 

already know. It must involve the integration of new knowledge with previously 

learned knowledge.
( 32 )

Appendix A. 

Postscript from 

the Institute of 

Education Sciences

What is a practice guide?

The health care professions have embraced a mechanism for assembling and 

communicating evidence-based advice to 

practitioners about care for specific clinical conditions. Variously called practice 

guidelines, treatment protocols, critical 

pathways, best practice guides, or simply 

practice guides, these documents are systematically developed recommendations 

about the course of care for frequently encountered problems, ranging from physical conditions, such as foot ulcers, to psychosocial conditions, such as adolescent 

development.78

Practice guides are similar to the products of typical expert consensus panels 

in reflecting the views of those serving 

on the panel and the social decisions that 

come into play as the positions of individual panel members are forged into statements that all panel members are willing 

to endorse. Practice guides, however, are 

generated under three constraints that do 

not typically apply to consensus panels. 

The first is that a practice guide consists 

of a list of discrete recommendations that 

are actionable. The second is that those 

recommendations taken together are intended to be a coherent approach to a 

multifaceted problem. The third, which is 

most important, is that each recommendation is explicitly connected to the level 

of evidence supporting it, with the level 

represented by a grade (high, moderate, 

or low). 

The levels of evidence, or grades, are 

usually constructed around the value of 

78. Field and Lohr (1990).

particular types of studies for drawing 

causal conclusions about what works. 

Thus, one typically finds that a high level 

of evidence is drawn from a body of randomized controlled trials, the moderate 

level from well designed studies that do 

not involve randomization, and the low 

level from the opinions of respected authorities (see table 1). Levels of evidence 

also can be constructed around the value 

of particular types of studies for other 

goals, such as the reliability and validity 

of assessments. 

Practice guides also can be distinguished 

from systematic reviews or meta-analyses such as What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) intervention reviews or statistical 

meta-analyses, which employ statistical 

methods to summarize the results of studies obtained from a rule-based search of 

the literature. Authors of practice guides 

seldom conduct the types of systematic 

literature searches that are the backbone 

of a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work when it is already 

published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the most important 

research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a search of recent 

publications to ensure that the research 

citations are up-to-date. Furthermore, the 

characterization of the quality and direction of the evidence underlying a recommendation in a practice guide relies less 

on a tight set of rules and statistical algorithms and more on the judgment of the 

authors than would be the case in a highquality meta-analysis. Another distinction 

is that a practice guide, because it aims for 

a comprehensive and coherent approach, 

operates with more numerous and more 

contextualized statements of what works 

than does a typical meta-analysis.

Thus, practice guides sit somewhere between consensus reports and meta-analyses in the degree to which systematic 

processes are used for locating relevant 

research and characterizing its meaning. 
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences

( 33 )

Practice guides are more like consensus 

panel reports than meta-analyses in the 

breadth and complexity of the topic that 

is addressed. Practice guides are different 

from both consensus reports and metaanalyses in providing advice at the level 

of specific action steps along a pathway 

that represents a more-or-less coherent 

and comprehensive approach to a multifaceted problem. 

Practice guides in education at the 

Institute of Education Sciences

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

publishes practice guides in education to 

bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic 

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs. Although IES has taken advantage 

of the history of practice guides in health 

care to provide models of how to proceed 

in education, education is different from 

health care in ways that may require a 

somewhat different design for practice 

guides in education have. Even within 

health care, where practice guides now 

number in the thousands, there is no single template in use. Rather, one finds descriptions of general design features that 

permit substantial variation in the realization of practice guides across subspecialties and panels of experts.79 Accordingly, 

the templates for IES practice guides may 

vary across practice guides and change 

over time and with experience.

The steps involved in producing an IES–

sponsored practice guide are first to select 

a topic, which is informed by formal surveys of practitioners and requests. Next, a 

panel chair is recruited who has a national 

reputation and up-to-date expertise in the 

topic. Third, the chair, working in collaboration with IES, selects a small number of 

panelists to coauthor the practice guide. 

79. American Psychological Association 

(2002).

These are people the chair believes can 

work well together and have the requisite 

expertise to be a convincing source of 

recommendations. IES recommends that 

at least one of the panelists be a practitioner with experience relevant to the 

topic being addressed. The chair and the 

panelists are provided a general template 

for a practice guide along the lines of the 

information provided in this postscript. 

They are also provided with examples of 

practice guides. The practice guide panel 

works under a short deadline of six to nine 

months to produce a draft document. The 

expert panel interacts with and receives 

feedback from staff at IES during the development of the practice guide, but they 

understand that they are the authors and, 

thus, responsible for the final product.

One unique feature of IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to 

rigorous external peer review through the 

same office that is responsible for independent review of other IES publications. 

Critical tasks of the peer reviewers of a 

practice guide are to determine whether 

the evidence cited in support of particular 

recommendations is up-to-date and that 

studies of similar or better quality that 

point in a different direction have not been 

ignored. Peer reviewers also are asked to 

evaluate whether the evidence grade assigned to particular recommendations by 

the practice guide authors is appropriate. 

A practice guide is revised as necessary to 

meet the concerns of external peer reviews 

and gain the approval of the standards and 

review staff at IES. The process of external 

peer review is carried out independent of 

the office and staff within IES that instigated the practice guide.

Because practice guides depend on the 

expertise of their authors and their group 

decision-making, the content of a practice 

guide is not and should not be viewed as a 

set of recommendations that in every case 

depends on and flows inevitably from scientific research. It is not only possible but 
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences

( 34 )

also likely that two teams of recognized 

experts working independently to produce 

a practice guide on the same topic would 

generate products that differ in important 

respects. Thus, consumers of practice 

guides need to understand that they are, 

in effect, getting the advice of consultants. 

These consultants should, on average, 

provide substantially better advice than an 

individual school district might obtain on 

its own because the authors are national 

authorities who have to reach agreement 

among themselves, justify their recommendations in terms of supporting evidence, and undergo rigorous independent 

peer review of their product. 

Institute of Education Sciences
( 35 )

Appendix B. 

About the authors

Panel

Russell Gersten, Ph.D., is President of 

RG Research Group and Executive Director of Instructional Research Group in 

Long Beach, California, as well as professor emeritus in the College for Education 

at the University of Oregon. Dr. Gersten 

is a nationally recognized expert on effective instructional practices to improve 

reading comprehension (both for narrative 

and expository text) and has extensive experience with the process of translating 

research into classroom practice. He has 

led the teams responsible for developing 

observational measures for reading comprehension and vocabulary instruction for 

several large-scale randomized control trials on the impact of observed practices in 

reading instruction on growth in reading. 

He is an expert in instructional strategies 

for improving reading comprehension, 

adaptations of the reading research-base 

for English language learner students, and 

longitudinal evaluation of reading programs. He has directed numerous implementation studies, large-scale evaluation 

projects, and randomized trial studies in 

the field of reading, with a focus on lowincome students and English learners. 

Additionally, he chaired a panel of expert researchers for the National Center 

for Learning Disabilities in June 2005 to 

synthesize knowledge of best practices in 

early screening and intervention for students with difficulties in mathematics. 

Donald L. Compton, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Special Education at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Before 

joining the faculty at Vanderbilt, Dr. Compton taught at the University of ArkansasFayetteville and spent a year as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute 

for Behavior Genetics at the University of 

Colorado-Boulder, where he worked with 

Dick Olson to analyze data from the twin 

sample of the Colorado Learning Disabilities Research Center. Dr. Compton teaches 

undergraduate and graduate courses in 

instructional principles and procedures 

in reading and writing for students with 

disabilities. His research involves modeling individual differences in the development of reading skills in children. He is 

currently the primary investigator on an 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) project 

addressing the key measurement issues 

associated with the Response-to-Intervention (RtI) approach to identifying learning 

difficulties.

Carol McDonald Connor, Ph.D., is an associate professor at Florida State University and a research faculty member of the 

Florida Center for Reading Research. She 

completed her Ph.D. in Education and was 

an assistant research scientist in Psychology at University of Michigan prior to coming to Florida State. Dr. Connor’s research 

interests focus on children’s learning in 

the classroom from preschool through 

grade 3 and the complex relationships 

between children’s language and literacy 

skills. She was recently awarded the 2006 

President’s Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers and the 2007 APA 

Richard Snow Award. She is the principal 

investigator of two studies funded by the 

Institute of Education Sciences and the National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development examining the causal effects 

of individualizing language arts instruction for students in grades 1–3 based on 

their language and reading skills.

Joseph A. Dimino, Ph.D., is a research associate at the Instructional Research Group 

in Long Beach, California where he is the 

coordinator of a national research project 

investigating the impact of Teacher Study 

Groups as a means to enhance the quality of reading instruction for first graders 

in high poverty schools and co-principal 

investigator for a study assessing the impact of collaborative strategic reading on 
Appendix B. About the authors

( 36 )

the comprehension and vocabulary skills 

of English language learner and Englishspeaking fifth graders. Dr. Dimino has 36 

years of experience as a general education teacher, special education teacher, 

administrator, behavior specialist, and 

researcher. He has extensive experience 

working with teachers, parents, administrators, and instructional assistants in 

the areas of instruction and early literacy, 

reading comprehension strategies, and 

classroom and behavior management in 

urban, suburban, and rural communities. 

He has published in numerous scholarly 

journals and coauthored books in reading 

comprehension and early reading intervention. Dr. Dimino has delivered papers 

at various state, national, and international conferences, including the American Educational Research Association, 

the National Reading Conference, and the 

Council for Exceptional Children and Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development. He consults nationally in the 

areas of early literacy and reading comprehension instruction.

Lana Edwards Santoro, Ph.D., is a research associate with the Instructional 

Research Group/RG Research Group and 

the Pacific Institutes for Research. She 

is a principal investigator on a series of 

IES–funded research on teaching reading 

comprehension to grade 1 students during classroom read-alouds. Of particular 

focus is her work to develop supplemental 

interventions for students at risk of early 

reading difficulties, students with vocabulary and language deficits, and Englishlanguage learners. She also serves as principal investigator on an IES–funded study 

investigating the impact of enhanced core 

reading instruction (tier 1) on the early 

literacy achievement of Spanish-speaking 

English language learners in transitional 

bilingual programs. Dr. Santoro consults 

with state, local, and private agencies on 

a variety of projects, including training 

presentations on effective instructional 

strategies, program development related 

to RtI and school improvement, and reading program evaluation. She has published 

extensively on the effects of researchbased strategies on student reading. Her 

research has been recognized with awards 

from the Council for Exceptional Children 

and the American Educational Research 

Association.

Sylvia Linan-Thompson, Ph.D., is an 

associate professor at The University of 

Texas in Austin. Her research interests 

include development of reading interventions for struggling readers who are 

monolingual English speakers, English 

language learner and bilingual students 

acquiring Spanish literacy. She is co-principal investigator of several longitudinal 

studies funded by IES and the National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development examining the language and 

literacy development in English and Spanish for Spanish-speaking children and the 

efficacy of a three-tier model of reading 

intervention in general education classrooms and in bilingual classrooms. She 

has authored curricular programs, book 

chapters, journal articles, and a book on 

reading instruction.

W. David Tilly III, Ph.D., is the Coordinator of Assessment Services at Heartland 

Area Education Agency. He has worked as 

a practicing school psychologist, a university trainer, a state department of education consultant and as an administrator 

in Iowa. He participated in the leadership of Iowa’s transformation to using RtI 

practices and has extensive experience 

working with districts, intermediate agencies, states, and professional organizations on the implementation of RtI. His 

research interests include implementing 

system change, instructional interventions, formative assessment, and translating research into practice. He coauthored 

a widely used publication on RtI for the 

National Association of State Directors of 

Special Education.
Appendix B. About the authors

( 37 )

Staff

Rebecca A. Newman-Gonchar, Ph.D., is 

a research associate with the Instructional 

Research Group/RG Research Group. She 

has experience in project management, 

study design and implementation, and 

quantitative and qualitative analysis. Dr. 

Newman-Gonchar has worked extensively 

on the development of observational measures for beginning and expository reading instruction for two major IES–funded 

studies of reading interventions for Title 

I students. She currently serves as a reviewer for the What Works Clearinghouse 

for reading and mathematics interventions and Response to Intervention. Her 

scholarly contributions include conceptual, descriptive, and quantitative publications on a range of topics. Her current 

interests include Response to Intervention, observation measure development 

for reading and mathematics instruction, 

and Teacher Study Groups. She has served 

as the technical editor for several publications and is a reviewer for Learning Disabilities Quarterly.

Kristin Hallgren is a research analyst at 

Mathematica Policy Research and a former 

classroom educator. She has provided research support for several IES–sponsored 

practice guides, including the dropout prevention practice guide, this Response to 

Intervention reading and multi-tier interventions practice guide, and other forthcoming practice guides. She has conducted 

classroom observations and data analysis for IES–sponsored projects related to 

teacher quality and professional development including rigorous evaluations of 

teacher preparation routes and high-intensity teacher induction programs. She has 

also been responsible for communicating 

complex research design methodologies to 

district and school-level administrators for 

rigorous evaluations of supplemental educational services and mathematics curricula. Ms. Hallgren’s expertise in classroom 

practices and background in research 

methodology has provided the panel with 

support for translating research principles 

into practitioner friendly text. 
( 38 )

Appendix C. 

Disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest

Practice guide panels are composed of individuals who are nationally recognized 

experts on the topics about which they are 

rendering recommendations. The Institute 

of Education Sciences (IES) expects that such 

experts will be involved professionally in a 

variety of matters that relate to their work 

as a panel. Panel members are asked to disclose their professional involvements and 

to institute deliberative processes that encourage critical examination of the views of 

panel members as they relate to the content 

of the practice guide. The potential influence 

of panel members’ professional engagements is further muted by the requirement 

that they ground their recommendations in 

evidence that is documented in the practice 

guide. In addition, the practice guide undergoes independent external peer review 

prior to publication, with particular focus on 

whether the evidence related to the recommendations in the practice guide has been 

appropriately presented.

The professional engagements reported 

by each panel member that appear most 

closely associated with the panel recommendations are noted below.

Russell Gersten has no financial stake in 

any program or practice that is mentioned in 

the practice guide. He is a royalty author for 

what may become the Texas or national edition of the forthcoming (2010/11) Houghton 

Mifflin reading series, Journeys. At the time of 

publication, Houghton Mifflin has not determined whether or not they will ever release 

this series. Dr. Gersten provided guidance on 

the product as it relates to struggling and English language learner students. He excused 

himself from any sessions where Houghton 

Mifflin or any of its products were discussed. 

The panel never discussed the Houghton 

Mifflin series. Dr. Gersten also occasionally 

consults with universities, research agencies, 

and state and local education agencies on 

teaching English language learner students, 

mathematics instruction for struggling students, and various issues on bringing research findings into classroom practice. 

Joseph Dimino coauthored Interventions 

for Reading Success (2007). This is not a 

published curriculum but a series of suggested activities for tier 2 interventions 

for students in the primary grades. He receives royalties from Brookes Publishing. 

Dr. Dimino excused himself from all discussions, reviews, and writing related to 

this program. This book is not referenced 

in this practice guide.

Lana Santoro received royalties as a consulting author for Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention (2003). Dr. Santoro excused 

herself from all discussions, reviews, and 

writing related to this program or any other 

Scott Foresman products. The practice guide 

does not reference particular intervention or 

core curricula programs. It merely discusses 

topics that should be covered in tier 2 interventions and uses research (analyzed independently by What Works Clearinghouse) as 

a basis for these decisions. No specific discussion of the particular intervention program took place in panel deliberations. 

Sylvia Linan-Thompson was a co-principal investigator on the research project 

that tested the proactive reading curriculum that is published under the name SRA’s 

Early Interventions in Reading. Dr. LinanThompson was primarily responsible for 

the development of the English language 

learner component of the curriculum. 

While she is not an author on the program, 

SRA is considering integrating the English 

language learner component into some 

of their curricula. The proactive reading 

intervention was discussed in the context 

of two research studies, one of which met 

standards. However, the panel did not address specific issues in adjusting the curriculum for English learners, which is the 

focus of Dr. Linan-Thompson’s work.
( 39 )

Appendix D. 

Technical information 

on the studies

Recommendation 1. 

Screen all students for potential 

reading problems at the beginning 

of the year and again in the middle 

of the year. Regularly monitor 

the progress of students who are 

at elevated risk for developing 

reading disabilities.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

recommendation 1 to be moderate. While 

a growing number of screening studies 

are appearing in the research literature, a 

majority of studies relies on correlational 

designs, lack cross-validation, and fail to 

use representative samples. In this appendix, we discuss the limited evidence base 

in terms of sensitivity and specificity of 

the measures.

Sensitivity is the degree to which a measure correctly identifies children at risk 

for experiencing difficulties in learning to 

read. In contrast, specificity is the degree 

to which a measure correctly identifies 

children at low risk for experiencing problems. These false positives refer to students who eventually become good readers but score below the cut-score on the 

predictive instrument and are thus falsely 

identified as at risk. Providing these students with extra tutoring stresses school 

resources, providing intervention to an inflated percentage of the population.80

To date, researchers have placed a premium on identification and early treatment 

of children at risk of future reading failure, 

and therefore high sensitivity rather than 

specificity is favored. The overall effect of 

demanding high sensitivity is to over-iden80. Jenkins and O’Connor (2002).

tify the risk pool of children needing tier 

2 intervention. Studies predicting risk in 

kindergarten children have reported sensitivity rates approaching minimally acceptable level of 90 percent with specificity 

ranging from 56 percent to 86 percent,81

which means that often far too many students are identified as at-risk for reading 

difficulties.82 

Results are more promising for grades 1 

and 2. Several studies have demonstrated 

sensitivity in grade 1 above 90 percent 

with acceptable specificity.83 For example, 

Compton et al. (2006) reports sensitivity 

rates approaching 100 percent with specificity of 93 percent using a combination of 

a one-time screening battery (containing 

measures of word identification, phonemic awareness, and rapid naming skill) in 

combination with six weeks on progress 

monitoring. However, these results have 

not been cross-validated and were not obtained with a representative sample. Similar results have been reported for screening grade 2 students.84

Recommendation 2. 

Provide differentiated reading 

instruction for all students based 

on assessments of students’ 

current reading levels (tier 1).

Level of evidence: Low

The panel rated the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as low based on one 

descriptive-correlational study with first 

and second graders that met standards 

with reservations and the opinion of the 

81. Foorman et al. (1998); O’Connor and Jenkins 

(1999).

82. See Jenkins and O’Connor (2002) for a discussion of the issue and for designing a manageable and acceptable risk pool for use within an 

RtI framework.

83. Compton et al. (2006); O’Connor and Jenkins 

(1999).

84. Foorman et al. (1998).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 40 )

panel. The correlational study—Connor et 

al. (2008)—examines how student reading growth varied by the degree to which 

teachers employed a specific differentiation program. This differentiation program 

relied on assessments to group students. 

Student reading growth was higher for 

teachers who implemented the program 

with greater fidelity. 

Recommendation 3. 

Provide intensive, systematic 

reading instruction on up to three 

foundational reading skills in small 

groups to students who score 

below the benchmark on universal 

screening. Typically, these groups 

meet between three and five times 

a week for 20 to 40 minutes (tier 2). 

Level of evidence: Strong

The panel judged the level of evidence supporting the recommendation to be strong. 

The panel found 11 studies conducted with 

students in the primary grades that met 

WWC standards or met standards with reservations. Table D1 provides an overview 

of each study’s outcomes in each of the 

five critical aspects of beginning reading 

instruction as articulated in the 11 studies. The table provides an overview of the 

reading domains taught in each tier 2 intervention and any significant outcomes found 

for each of the five domains. Group size for 

tier 2 instruction, typical session length, 

and duration are also indicated. Note that 

many in the field consider frequency and 

duration as gauges of intensity of the intervention.85 One study is excluded from the 

table but included in the accompanying 

text because it was a follow-up study of an 

intervention that produced strong effects 

in many reading domains.86

Because of the large number of high quality randomized controlled trials and quasiexperimental design studies conducted 

using systematic instruction in several of 

the critical domains of beginning reading 

instruction, the frequency of significant effects, and the fact that numerous research 

teams independently produced similar 

findings, the panel concluded that there is 

strong evidence to support the recommendation to provide intensive, explicit, and 

systematic instruction in critical reading 

skills stressed in National Reading Panel 

for tier 2 interventions.87

85. National Association of State Directors of 

Special Education (2005).

86. Gunn et al. (2002).

87. National Reading Panel (2000).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 41 )

Table D1. Studies of tier 2 interventions in grades K–2 reading that met What Works Clearinghouse standards

Reading domain assessed Intensity

Study Grade level Intervention

Phonemic 

awareness Decoding

Reading 

comprehension Vocabulary Fluency Frequency Duration Group size

Ebaugh, 2000

1 PA, D, E, W ns 30 min./day Daily 32 weeks 5–6 students

Ehri et al. 2007

1 PA, D, E, F, 

C, V * * * * 30 min./day Daily 24 weeks one-on-one

Gibbs, 2001 1 PA ns ns 10 min./day Daily 8 weeks one-on-one

Gunn et al. 2000

K–3 PA, D, C, F

* ^ * ^

≥25 min./day 

Daily

56 weeks 

(over two 

years)

2–3 

(Some 

one-on-one)

Jenkins et al. 2004

1 D, E * * ^ 30 min. four 

times a week

25 weeks one-on-one

Lennon and Slesinski, 1999

K PA, D, C

* *

30 min./day 

Daily

10 weeks 2 students

Mathes et al. 2005

1 Both: PA, D, 

C Responsive: E, F, 

V, W

*

* (responsive 

intervention) 

^ (proactive 

intervention)

ns

40 min./day 

Daily

32 weeks 3 students

McMaster et al. 2005

1 PA, D

ns ns ns ns ns

35 min./day 

three times a 

week

7 months one-on-one

Vadasy et al., 1997

1 PA, D, E

ns ns

30 min/day 

four times a 

week

28 weeks one-on-one

Vadasy et al., 2005

1 PA, D, E

* * ns

30 min./day 

four times a 

week

32 weeks one-on-one

Vaughn et al., 2006

1 PA, D, E, C, 

F, V * * ns 50 min./day Daily 28 weeks 3–5 students

Note: Studies in bold showed statistically significant effects in at least one domain of reading instruction.PA = phonemic awareness, D = decoding, E = encoding (Spelling related to phonics instruction), C = Comprehension, V=Vocabulary, F=Fluency, W = writingns = not statistically significant (

p > .10).

^ = approached significance (

p = .05-.10).

* = statistically significant (

p < .05).

Source: Authors’ analysis based on studies in table.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 42 )

Evidence supporting explicit, 

systematic instruction as the key 

instructional delivery method for tier 2 

tutoring on foundational reading skills.

All 11 studies used programs that systematically taught reading skills,88 with seven 

of these studies demonstrating a positive 

effect on one or more reading outcomes.89

For example, Gunn et al. (2000) conducted 

a randomized controlled trial involving 

supplementary instruction for students in 

kindergarten through grade 3 in phonemic 

awareness, sound-letter correspondence, 

and decoding. Instruction was highly explicit, students received many opportunities to practice each skill, and feedback 

was immediate and clear. Reading material consisted of decodable texts based on 

current reading levels. Although the emphasis was on decoding and fluency, the 

researchers also found an effect on reading vocabulary.

Jenkins et al. (2004) and Vadasy et al. 

(2005) used a virtually identical approach. 

Content of the intervention was similar except more time was spent on sight 

words and spelling. Here effects were 

found not only in decoding but also in 

comprehension. The findings suggested 

that, at least in kindergarten and grade 1, 

students with strong systematic instruction in small groups in phonemic awareness and decoding and fluent reading may 

also show growth in comprehension or 

vocabulary.

Both Ehri et al. (2007) and Vaughn et al. 

(2006) offered the widest menu of reading domains, including comprehension 

and vocabulary instruction along with 

88. Gunn et al. (2000); McMaster et al. (2005); Vadasy et al. (1997); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton 

(2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); Gibbs (2001); Vaughn 

et al. (2006); Ebaugh (2000); Ehri et al. (2007); Mathes et al. (2005).

89. Gunn et al. (2000); Jenkins et al. (2004); Ehri 

et al. (2007); Ebaugh (2000); Vadasy, Sanders, and 

Peyton (2005); Vaughn et al. (2006).

the core foundational skills for learning 

how to read. Vaughn et al. found effects 

in comprehension as well as decoding, 

whereas Ebaugh’s effects were limited to 

decoding. Ehri included phonemic awareness, decoding, reading comprehension, 

and fluency.

In summary, this highly explicit, highly 

systematic mode of small group instruction consistently produces positive effects, often significant effects in the area 

of decoding and often in comprehension 

and vocabulary as well. What remains uncertain is the balance of “learning to read” 

skills and comprehension, vocabulary, and 

language development in tier 2 interventions. Most important, the field needs to 

systematically study which domain areas 

make the most sense for students at various levels of reading proficiency. Our hypothesis is that the balance increases to 

more complex reading comprehension activities once students learn to read. However, for those still struggling to learn to 

read, it is unclear how much instruction in 

vocabulary and listening comprehension 

is necessary.

In understanding the nature of this body 

of evidence, the reader should keep in 

mind that instruction was often one-onone (6 out of 11 of the WWC-rated studies) 

or in very small groups of two to three 

students.

In the remainder of the section, we review 

impacts on specific domains of tier 2 reading instruction. 

Evidence supporting instruction of 

critical reading skills

Phonemic awareness. Five studies measured phonemic awareness—a student’s 

understanding that words consist of individual phonemes. Phonemic awareness 

is a potent predictor of future success in 

reading and a critical foundational skill for 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 43 )

becoming a reader.90 Significant outcomes 

were found for only two studies although 

most of the tier 2 interventions did have a 

phonemic awareness component.91

Three of the five studies showed no significant effects for phonemic awareness. 

In some cases, ceiling effects may have 

played a role in the lack of significant findings. Meanwhile, lack of significant effects 

in the Gibbs (2001) study may be due to the 

short intensity and duration of the intervention. In this investigation students received 10 minutes of phonemic awareness 

instruction five times per week for only 

eight weeks. In addition, it is common for 

students’ phonological skills to decrease 

as they begin to understand letter-sound 

correspondence. In other words, by the 

time students were post-tested their understanding of the relationship between 

letters and the sounds they make may 

have influenced their performance on the 

phonemic awareness assessments.

Decoding. Students’ ability to read real 

words and individual sentences (not connected text), was measured in all nine 

studies.92 Significant effects were reported 

in five of these studies.93 The fact that this 

finding is replicated frequently indicates 

that the various approaches to systematic 

explicit instruction all seem to produce 

growth in this domain.

Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension assessments were used as 

90. Vaughn et al. (2006); Gunn et al. (2000); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Ebaugh (2000); 

Lennon and Slesinski (1999).

91. Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Lennon 

and Slesinksi (1999).

92. Gunn et al. (2000); McMaster et al. (2005); Vadasy et al. (1997); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton 

(2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); Gibbs (2001); Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Ebaugh, (2000); Ehri 

et al. (2007).

93. Ehri et al. (2007); Gunn et al. (2000); Jenkins 

et al. (2004); Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Vadasy, 

Sanders, and Peyton (2005).

outcome measures in 7 of the 11 studies,94

and significant outcomes were reported in 

five studies.95 This also is a sizeable proportion and indicates that one can expect 

effects in this domain. This is especially 

interesting because of the five studies 

that demonstrated significant effects; only 

three had a comprehension component. 

For example, Vadasy et al. (2005) and Jenkins et al. (2004) included a good deal of 

oral reading of decodable texts96 but no 

explicit comprehension instruction. Yet effects on comprehension were significant. 

The reader should keep in mind that although this is an important finding, the 

level of comprehension tapped in most of 

these measures for grade 1 and 2 students 

is usually not very complex. 

Vaughn et al’s (2006) intervention included 

a good deal of work with oral reading of 

connected text but also small group instruction in a variety of comprehension 

strategies (using K-W-L, summarization, 

and retelling). This intervention led to significant effects.

Vocabulary. Students’ vocabulary knowledge was rarely assessed. Of the three 

studies that assessed this domain,97 significance was reported in only one.98 Reading 

vocabulary is thus unlikely to improve unless the intervention contains a vocabulary 

component. But the small number of studies that assessed this phenomenon means 

that results are simply inconclusive. 

94. Gunn et al. (2000); McMaster et al. (2005); 

Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Jenkins et 

al. (2004); Vaughn et al. (2006); Ehri et al. (2007); 

Mathes et al. (2005).

95. Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); Vaughn et al. (2006); Ehri et al. 

(2007); Mathes et al. (2005).

96. Jenkins et al. (2004) also contained a condition where students read books that were not 

necessarily decodable. This condition, too, led 

to significant effects in comprehension. 

97. Gunn et al. (2000); Gunn et al. (2002); McMaster et al. (2005).

98. Gunn et al. (2000).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 44 )

Fluency. Students’ ability to read connected 

text fluently and accurately was assessed 

in 7 of the 11 studies,99 and treatment 

students performed significantly better in 

one study and approached significance (p

was between .5 and .10) in two studies.100

Students’ performance on these measures 

resulted in a few intriguing findings. In the 

follow up study conducted a year after the 

supplemental tier 2 intervention, Gunn 

et al. (2002) found that fluency outcomes 

were significant, but the original study 

(Gunn et al. 2000) did not demonstrate significant fluency outcomes. In other words, 

it may take time before a fluency intervention demonstrates impact. 

As primary grade students practice reading fluently, they seem to improve their 

word reading accuracy. When considered 

together, results suggest that fluency interventions are a promising practice, as opposed to a clear evidence-based practice for 

tier 2 interventions at this point in time. 

Research supporting intensity: 

frequency and duration of sessions 

and group size

Tier 2 instruction varied from three to 

five times a week. Six of the studies with 

significant outcomes on decoding, reading comprehension, or fluency provided 

daily instruction.101 But data suggesting 

that daily interventions lead to better effects than those administered four days a 

week or even three is insufficient. 

In terms of length of intervention sessions, 

nine studies provided at least 25 minutes 

99. Gunn et al. (2000); Mathes et al. (2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); Ehri et al. (2007); McMaster et 

al. (2005); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); 

Vaughn et al. (2006).

100. Gunn et al. (2002); Vadasy, Sanders, and 

Peyton (2005); Ehri et al. (2007).

101. Ebaugh (2000); Gibbs (2001); Gunn et al. 

(2000); Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Vaughn et 

al. (2006); Mathes et al. (2005).

of instruction,102 with one study reporting 

50 minutes of instruction per session:103 the 

seven studies that had an effect on decoding, reading comprehension, or fluency provided instruction for at least 25 minutes,104

while the three studies that had no significant effects varied in the length of sessions 

from 10 to 35 minutes.105

It is not possible to determine the role the 

number of days of intervention played in 

the studies in which no significant findings 

were found despite the intensity of the intervention. Although one study provided 

intervention five times a week, it did so for 

only ten minutes a day,106 and one study 

provided instruction for 35 minutes but 

only three times a week.107 Based on the 

evidence from these studies, it would be advisable to provide intervention four to five 

times a week and for at least 30 minutes. 

In 6 of the 11 studies students were instructed on one-on-one.108 Configurations 

for the remaining studies109 consisted of 

small groups ranging from two to six students. The panel suggests that the combination of intensity (the amount of time per 

session) and duration (number of weeks) 

rather than the grouping configuration 

may be the critical variable contributing to 

102. Ebaugh (2000); Gibbs (2001); Gunn et al. 

(2000); Mathes et al. (2005); Jenkins et al. (2004); 

Lennon and Slesinski (1999); McMaster et al. 

(2005); Vadasy et al. (1997); Vadasy, Sanders, and 

Peyton (2005).

103. Vaughn et al. (2006).

104. Ebaugh (2000); Gunn et al. (2000); Gunn et 

al. (2002); Jenkins et al. (2004); Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); 

Vaughn et al. (2006).

105. McMaster et al. (2005); Vadasy et al. (1997);

Gibbs (2001).

106. Gibbs (2001).

107. McMaster et al. (2005).

108. McMaster et al. (2005); Vadasy et al. (1997); 

Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Jenkins et al. 

(2004); Gibbs (2001); Erhi et al. (2007).

109. Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Ebaugh (2000); 

Gunn et al. (2000); Vaughn et al. (2006).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 45 )

positive outcomes for students. However, 

this is only speculative at this point. 

The only inference that can be clearly 

drawn is that the 10-minute phonemic 

awareness lessons conducted daily for 

eight weeks were not intense enough to 

produce significant effects in readingrelated skills. The one-on-one sessions 

tended to be reasonably lengthy (30 minutes) and of long duration. Three of the 

four produced significant effects.110

In the four investigations where students 

were taught in small groups111 significant 

outcomes were reported for interventions 

that ranged between 10 weeks and 1.5 years 

and were conducted for 25 to 50 minutes 

daily. Only Mathes et al. (2005) and Vaughn 

et al. (2006) reported significant effects in 

reading comprehension. Significant outcomes in decoding and fluency were reported by Gunn (2000), while Lennon and 

Slesinski (1999) reported significant effects 

in phonemic awareness and decoding. Decoding was the only outcome measure in 

the Ebaugh (2000). Unfortunately, after 

30 minutes of instruction per day for 32 

weeks, there were no significant effects.

A study of intensive, explicit, and 

systematic small group instruction—

Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, 

Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, 

et al. 2006

This intervention study was conducted in 

two sites in Texas that were selected because they were representative of the population areas where large numbers of bilingual students go to school and because 

students were receiving reading instruction in English. Four schools within these 

districts that were considered effective for 

110. Vadasy, Sanders, and Peyton (2005); Jenkins 

et al. (2004); Ehri et al. (2007).

111. Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Ebaugh (2000); 

Gunn et al. (2000); Vaughn et al. (2006).

bilingual students were selected using a 

priori criteria: schools were providing English intervention for reading to at least two 

classes of grade 1 English language learner 

students, at least 60 percent of the student 

population was Latino, and schools’ statelevel reading achievement tests at grade 3 

indicated that 80 percent or more of students passed the test. 

The research team screened all students 

in 14 bilingual, grade 1 classrooms in 

the four schools. Criteria for selecting 

students for the intervention were determined as being those who scored below 

the 25th percentile in grade 1 on the Letter 

Word Identification subtest in both Spanish and English, and who were unable to 

read more than one word from the simple 

word list. Two-hundred sixteen students 

were administered both the Spanish and 

English screen at the four target schools. 

One-hundred eleven students (51 percent) 

met the Spanish intervention inclusion 

criteria, 69 students (32 percent) met the 

English intervention inclusion criteria, and 

58 students (27 percent) met both criteria. 

Eleven students met the English cutoff but 

not the Spanish cutoff, and these students 

were not eligible for the intervention. 

The study was initiated with 24 intervention students and 24 contrast students 

and due to ordinary attrition (students’ 

families moving or students transferring 

to other schools), the study ended with 22 

intervention and 19 contrast students (8 

percent attrition for intervention and 21 

percent attrition for contrast); data were 

not obtainable on one student (contrast) 

at either testing time point. The mean age 

of the 47 students with pretest data was 

6.59 years (SD = 0.54). All students were 

Hispanic, and female students comprised 

50 percent of the sample (n = 23).

Eligible students received daily supplemental instruction from October to April.

Each session was 50 minutes long. Forty 

minutes were spent on literacy instruction. 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 46 )

The literacy strands varied in time from 

5 to 12 minutes. More time was dedicated 

to a strand when new elements were introduced, and less time when it was review. 

The read aloud was always 10 minutes. 

Daily lesson plans were comprised of six 

to ten short activities representing five 

content strands: phonemic awareness, 

letter knowledge, word recognition, connected text fluency, and comprehension 

strategies. Daily lessons were fully specified and provided exact wording to ensure 

teachers’ language was clear and kept to a 

minimum. To ensure student engagement, 

there was constant interaction between 

the instructor and students. The lesson 

cycle included modeling, group response, 

and individual turns. Pacing was another 

characteristic of the intervention. A rapid 

pace was maintained both in the exchange 

in each strand and in moving from activity to activity within each lesson. Tutors 

also consistently monitored students’ responses, provided positive praise for correct responses, and scaffolded errors as 

they occurred. Finally, mastery checks 

were conducted after every five lessons. 

Given that students were assigned to intervention and contrast groups randomly, 

there were no significant group mean differences in performance on either of the 

skills (Woodcock Language Proficiency 

Battery-Revised (WLPB-R), letter word identification, and experimental word reading list) used in the intervention screen, 

in English112 or Spanish.113 Furthermore, 

mean comparison of skill performance 

on the larger battery administered prior 

to the onset of treatment indicated that 

students in the intervention and contrast 

groups performed at comparable levels 

on all English and Spanish skills assessed, 

with no significant differences between 

students on any measure. Reading and language performances were approximately 1 

112. Woodcock (1991). 

113. Woodcock and Muñoz-Sandoval (1995).

to 3 standard deviations below normative 

levels for both groups, with performances 

nearing the average range only for English 

Word Attack scores (for both groups).

Intervention students’ performance on English measures indicate that they outperformed control students on measures that 

ranged from rapid letter naming to reading 

comprehension as measured by WLPB-R passage comprehension subtest. Intervention 

students’ were able to match sounds, blend 

sounds to form words, segment words into 

phonemes, and delete sounds better than 

control students. They also outperformed 

intervention students on the WLPB-R Word 

Attack subtest, indicating that intervention 

students demonstrated a greater ability to 

apply phonic and structural analysis skills 

to pronounce phonetically regular nonsense 

words in English. 

Recommendation 4. Monitor the 

progress of tier 2 students at least 

once a month. Use these data to 

determine whether students still 

require intervention. For those 

students still making insufficient 

progress, school-wide teams should 

design a tier 3 intervention plan.

Level of evidence: Low

The panel rated the level of evidence as 

low. Only three studies114 of tier 2 interventions that met WWC standards or that 

met standards with reservations included 

a weekly progress monitoring or unit mastery component. However, neither of the 

studies evaluated progress monitoring as 

an independent variable. Thus, no inferences can be drawn about its effectiveness 

based on the research reviewed.

In the Mathes et al. (2005) study, teachers 

used data from student assessments to 

identify needs and strengths, and planned 

114. Mathes et al. (2005); McMaster et al. (2005); 

Gibbs (2001).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 47 )

instruction from that analysis. In the Gibbs 

(2001) study, tutors collected data weekly 

using mastery tests. After each mastery 

test, tutors were directed to proceed to the 

next lesson or to repeat lessons based on 

number of correct responses.115

A few studies of tier 2 interventions that 

met WWC standards or that met standards 

with reservations reported using data at 

certain points during the intervention, 

but did not report on how often data was 

collected or if students were regrouped 

based on progress. Two studies used data 

to inform student pairings for practice 

within tier 2 instruction.116 Pairs were rearranged when one participant was making more progress than the other.117 Three 

additional studies used data on student 

progress to determine the type of instruction that students received, such as echo, 

partner, or independent reading.118

Despite the lack of evidence supporting 

use of progress monitoring, the panel decided to recommend this practice for students in tier 2 interventions. In our experience, progress monitoring data are used 

to determine students’ response to tier 2 

instruction and to inform instructional decisions in two ways.119 First, data are used 

to identify students who need additional 

instruction to benefit from tier 2 instruction. This additional support, usually an 

additional 10 to 15 minutes, is provided to 

accelerate the learning of a student who is 

lagging behind the other students in the 

group.120 It also identifies students who no 

longer require tier 2 instruction. It can be 

used to regroup students who continue to 

115. Gibbs (2001).

116. Lennon and Slesinski (1999); Gunn et al. 

(2000).

117. Lennon and Slesinski (1999).

118. Jenkins et al. (2004); Vadasy, Sanders, and 

Peyton (2005); Ehri et al. (2007).

119. McMaster et al. (2005).

120. Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman 

(2003).

need tier 2 instruction so that tier 2 groups 

remain homogenous.121 An advantage of 

using progress monitoring measures for 

these decisions (as opposed to daily or 

weekly mastery tests) is that they provide 

a more valid picture of overall growth in 

reading proficiency. 

Recommendation 5. 

Provide intensive instruction 

on a daily basis that promotes 

the development of the various 

components of reading proficiency 

to students who show minimal 

progress after reasonable time in 

tier 2 small group instruction (tier 3).

Level of evidence: Low

The level of evidence for this recommendation is rated as low. Although the panel found 

five studies that met the What Works Clearinghouse standards (or met standards with 

reservations) relating to this recommendation, no studies reported statistically significant impacts on reading outcomes.122

For the purposes of this document, tier 3 

is defined as a layer of instructional intervention for any student in kindergarten 

through grade 2 who requires something 

substantially more intensive or substantially different than tier 2 instruction. 

However, tier 2 instruction is not the same 

as special education for students with 

learning disabilities. Thus, we did not include the literature base for special education for students with learning disabilities 

in our review, though undoubtedly some 

ideas about promising practice might be 

gleaned from this body of research.

Distinctions between tier 2 and tier 3 interventions are far from clear. In our search 

121. Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman 

(2003). 

122. McMaster et al. (2005); Foorman et al. (1998); 

Blumsack (1996); Gillon (2000); O’Connor and 

Jenkins (1995).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 48 )

of the literature, we found two studies123

on interventions that simultaneously targeted tier 2 and tier 3 students.124 We, 

therefore, included these two studies since 

they provided adequate information to 

draw inferences about the impact on tier 

3 students; three studies clearly addressed 

a tier 3 population.125

Although we found no evidence of significant effects, we believe that several of the 

studies suggest promising practices for 

tier 3 intervention. The reader should keep 

in mind, though, that these are merely potentially promising practices. 

Although all five studies focused on a small 

number of high priority reading-related 

skills, only one included actual work on 

reading of words or pseudowords.126 A 

trend across interventions was the use of 

multiple and extended instructional sessions ranging from a month127 to a full 

school year.128

A key trait of all five studies was the use 

of extensive practice on the targeted reading-related skills. In all but one (Foorman 

et al. 1998), if a student made an error, the 

teaching guide or script provided explicit 

procedures for teachers to correct student 

responses. Another key trait of all but Foorman et al. (1998) was to use mastery criteria. Before a student could progress to the 

next skill level or new activity, they had 

to perform a task correctly. For example, 

123. Foorman et al. (1998); McMaster et al. 

(2005).

124. Both tier 2 and tier 3 studies were conducted with students in the primary grades 

with reading difficulties or significant delays in 

reading (for example, students were considered 

“nonresponders” due to reading performance 

and growth rates substantially below average 

achieving peers).

125. Blumsack (1996); Gillon (2000); O’Connor 

and Jenkins (1995).

126. Foorman et al. (1998).

127. O’Connor and Jenkins (1995).

128. McMaster et al. (2005); Foorman et al. (1998).

Blumsack (1996) required that students 

master segmenting three phoneme items 

and letter-sound associations before moving forward to the next activity level. 

All five studies included instruction that 

was designed to systematically move from 

easy to more difficult skills. Three of the 

five studies included specific material 

supports and manipulatives to make student learning more concrete.129 In summary, all involved systematic instruction 

with extensive practice, clear feedback, 

teaching to mastery, and carefully thought 

out progression from easy to hard learning activities—all elements of direct 

instruction.130

A study of carefully planned 

individualized instruction—

O’Connor and Jenkins, 1995

O’Connor and Jenkins (1995) wanted to 

know whether teaching spelling to kindergarteners experiencing extreme difficulty 

learning to read would accelerate their reading growth. The intervention included ten 

students who had been identified as developmentally delayed and eligible for special 

education services while in kindergarten. 

The students had previously participated in 

60 hours of code-emphasis, decoding-based 

reading instruction as part of SRA’s Reading 

Mastery I series,131 which explicitly teaches 

phonics and blending of phonemes. 

Ten students were paired and then randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions. Students in the experimental group received 20 minutes of daily 

individual spelling instruction during May 

of their kindergarten year in addition 

to their daily small group code-emphasis reading instruction provided in small 

129. Blumsack (1996); Gillon (2000); O’Connor and 

Jenkins (1996).

130. Engelmann and Carnine (1981).

131. Engelmann and Bruner (1988).
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 49 )

groups. In their spelling lessons, students 

pointed to and wrote letters that made 

a particular sound, started a particular 

word, or ended a particular word. Lessons 

at the end of the instructional sequence 

required students to use magnetic letters 

to spell words from a selected word list, 

as well as write two or three of the same 

words on paper. As students mastered 

words on a particular word list, new words 

were introduced. The teacher tracked the 

exact words presented during a session, 

the student’s accuracy, and the number of 

times the student practiced the word before mastering the word’s spelling.

Spelling instruction included systematic 

routines. For example, a teacher would 

ask students to show (point to) a letter that 

makes a particular sound, then write the 

letter that makes that particular sound. 

Next, students would show a letter that 

starts a word and then write the letter 

that starts the word. These routines were 

repeated across lessons. Instruction was 

also scaffolded from easier tasks to more 

difficult tasks. Instruction began with an 

individual letter and sound, then moved 

to first sounds, and then last sounds. Student feedback was also individualized. If a 

student had difficulty with a word, teachers 

would first ask the child to orally segment 

the word (a scaffold or support strategy 

to help the student identify the sounds in 

the word) and then present earlier tasks 

as prompts to help guide the student’s response. Students in the control group received no spelling instruction at all. They 

spent their time practicing reading words.

Results from O’Connor and Jenkins indicate that the intensive spelling instruction component resulted in promising, 

although non-significant, effects in many 

aspects of reading and spelling. A measure of decoding approached significance 

with a p level of .09. Despite outcomes on 

spelling and word reading measures, there 

were no differences between groups on a 

phonemic segmentation task. 

In addition to careful instructional planning that included individualized student 

feedback and error correction, mastery 

criteria, and lessons that moved systematically from easier tasks for more difficult 

tasks, O’Connor and Jenkins’ results may 

suggest a promising practice for students 

who require tier 3 intervention. Specifically, the students who received spelling 

had a clearer and more direct presentation of how the alphabetic principle (words 

include letters and letters are linked to 

sounds) works in reading. Spelling may be 

a more accessible way to apply phonological skills to reading. Potentially, spelling 

could help demonstrate how word reading works.
( 50 )

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for 

educational and psychological testing. 

Washington, DC: AERA Publications.

American Psychological Association. 

(2002). Criteria for practice guideline 

development and evaluation. American 

Psychologist, 57(12), 1048–1051.

Assessment Committee. (2002). Analysis of 

reading assessment measures, coding 

form for Dynamic Indicators of Basic 

Early Literacy Skills. Retrieved from 

the University of Oregon, DIBELS data 

system website: https://dibels.uoregon.

edu/techreports/dibels_5th_ed.pdf.

Badian, N. A. (1994). Preschool prediction: 

orthographic and phonological skills, 

and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 44(1), 

3–25.

Baker, S., Gersten R., Haager, D., & Dingle, 

M. (2006). Teaching practice and the 

reading growth of first-grade English 

learners: Validation of an observation 

instrument. Elementary School Journal, 

107(2), 199–219. 

Baker, S. K., & Baker, D. L. (2008). English 

learners and response to intervention: 

Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with 

disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond. New 

York: Springer.

Barker, A. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (1995). An 

evaluation of computer-assisted instruction in phonological awareness 

with below average readers. Journal of 

Educational Computing Research, 13(1), 

89–103.

Blumsack, J. B. (1996). Teaching phonological awareness to children with language 

impairments. (Doctoral dissertation, 

Syracuse University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(07A), 

74–2587.

Catts, H. (1991). Early identification of dyslexia: Evidence from a follow-up study 

of speech-language impaired children. 

Annals of Dyslexia, 41(1), 163–177.

Chambless, J., & Chambless, M. (1994). 

The impact of instructional technology 

on reading/writing skills of 2nd grade 

students. Reading Improvement, 31(3), 

151–155.

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & 

Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk 

readers in first grade for early intervention: a two-year longitudinal study 

of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 

394–409.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, 

B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, 

P. (2007). The early years: Algorithmguided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464–465.

Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., 

Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., 

Underwood, P., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). 

Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child by instruction 

interactions on first graders’ literacy 

development. Child Development, 80(1), 

77–100.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. 

(1997). Early reading acquisition and 

its relation to reading experience and 

ability ten years later. Developmental 

Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.

Division for Learning Disabilities. (2007). 

Thinking about response to intervention 

and learning disabilities: A teacher’s 

guide. Arlington, VA: Author.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). 

Minority students in special and gifted 

education. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.

Ebaugh, J. C. (2000). The effects of fluency 

instruction on the literacy development 

of at-risk first graders. (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 2000). 

Dissertation Abstracts International, 

61(06A), 0072.
References

( 51 )

Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & 

Gross, A. (2007). Reading rescue: An 

effective tutoring intervention model 

for language-minority students who 

are struggling readers in first grade. 

American Educational Research Journal, 

44(2), 414–48.

Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (1988). Reading Mastery. Chicago: Science Research 

Associates.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982) Theory 

of instruction: principles and practice. 

New York: Irvington.

Felton, R. H. (1992). Early identification of 

children at risk of reading disabilities. 

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 212–229.

Felton, R. H., & Pepper, P. P. (1995). Early 

identification and intervention of phonological deficits in kindergarten and 

early elementary children at risk for 

reading disability. School Psychology 

Review, 24(3), 405–414.

Field, M. J. & Lohr, K. N. (Eds). (1990). Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a 

new program. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press.

Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. 

J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). 

The role of instruction in learning to 

read: Preventing reading failure in atrisk children. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 90(1), 37–55.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., 

Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, 

S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to 

the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal 

of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, 

K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. 

(1996). Developmental lag versus deficit 

models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

88(1), 3–17.

Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L. & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). 

Effects of frequent curriculum-based 

measurement on pedagogy, student 

achievement, and student awareness 

of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449–450

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. 

(2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7–21.

Fuchs, L S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989a). 

Effects of alternative goal structures 

within curriculum-based measurement. 

Exceptional Children, 55(5), 429–438.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). 

The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and 

Special Education, 9(2), 20–29.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001a). Oral reading fluency 

as an indicator of reading competence: 

A theoretical, empirical, and historical 

analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 

5(3), 239–256.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al 

Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & 

O’Connor, R. (2001b). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A 

randomized field trial with teachers as 

program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251–267.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). 

(2008). Response to intervention. Newark, 

DE: International Reading Association.

Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2008). 

Reading comprehension and vocabulary 

instruction: Results of an observation 

study of first grade classrooms. Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the 

Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Asheville, NC, July 10–12, 2008. 

Gibbs, S. E. L. (2001). Effects of a one-to-one 

phonological awareness intervention on 

first grade students identified as at risk 

for the acquisition of beginning reading. (Doctoral dissertation, University 

of South Carolina, 2001). Dissertation 

Abstracts International, 62(07A), 0202.

Gillon, G. T. (2000). The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. 

Language, Speech and Hearing Services 

in Schools, 31(2), 126–141.
References

( 52 )

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy 

skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services. 

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, 

E. J. (2001). The importance of decision-making utility of a continuum of 

fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade 

high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies 

of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.

Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, 

D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for 

Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in 

early elementary school. The Journal of 

Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.

Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., & 

Black, C. (2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and 

non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: a follow-up. The Journal of 

Special Education, 36(2), 69–79.

Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). 

(2007). Evidence-based reading practices 

for response to intervention. Baltimore, 

MD: Paul Brooks Publishing Co.

Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction. 

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 

115–125.

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. 

(Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special 

education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108–446 

(2004).

Jenkins, J. R. (2003, December). Candidate 

measures for screening at-risk students.

Paper presented at the Conference on 

Response to Intervention as Learning 

Disabilities Identification, sponsored by 

the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.

Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. 

S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers 

in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 

582–600.

Jenkins, J. R., & O’Connor, R. E. (2002). Early 

identification and intervention for young 

children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, and D. 

P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 

99–149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., 

& Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental 

first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of 

Reading, 8(1), 53–85.

Johnson, E., Jenkins, J., Petscher, Y., & Catts, 

H. (in press). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: 

A longitudinal study of 54 children 

from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 

437–447.

Lennon, J. E., & Slesinski, C. (1999). Early 

intervention in reading: Results of a 

screening and intervention program for 

kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 353–364.

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C., Fletcher, J., Anthony, J., Francis, D., & Schatschneider, 

C. (2005). The effects of theoretically 

different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling 

readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 

40(2), 148–182.

McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, 

H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and 

preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & 

Practice, 16(4), 230–239.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & 

Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to 

nonresponders: An experimental field 

trial of identification and intervention 

methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 

445–463.

National Association of State Directors 

of Special Education. (2005). Response 

to intervention: Policy considerations 

and implementation. Alexandria, VA: 

Author.
References

( 53 )

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching 

children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for 

reading instruction (National Institute of 

Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Child Health 

and Human Development.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. 

New York, NY: McGraw–Hill. 

O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound/

symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling 

to kindergarten children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 

255–275.

O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). The 

prediction of reading disabilities in 

kindergarten and first grade. Scientific 

Studies of Reading, 3(2), 159–197.

Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W. C., 

& Maynard, A. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study 

of 187 children from first through sixth 

grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 3–13.

President’s Commission on Excellence in 

Special Education. (2002). A new era: 

Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, 

DC: Author.

Scarborough, H. S. (1998a). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and 

some other promising predictors. In B. 

K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute 

(Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view 

of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, 

MD: York Press.

Schatschneider, C. (2006). Reading difficulties: Classification and issues of prediction. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast 

Regional Conference, San Diego, CA.

Snow, C. E. (2001). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education 

and the Science and Technology Policy 

Institute.

Snow, C. S., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (1998). 

Preventing reading difficulties in young 

children. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press.

Speece, D., & Case, L. (2001). Classification in context: an alternative approach 

to identifying early reading disability. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 

735–749.

Speece, D., Mills, C., Ritchey, K., & Hillman, 

E. (2003b). Initial evidence that letter 

fluency tasks are valid indicators of 

early reading skill. Journal of Special 

Education, 36(4), 223–233.

Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. 

(1999). Interventions for students with 

learning disabilities: A meta-analysis 

of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: 

Guilford Press.

Technical report: Texas primary reading inventory (1999 Edition). Retrieved 

from: http://www.tpri.org/Documents/

19981999TechnicalReport.pdf.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of 

reading difficulties. Journal of School 

Psychology, 40(1), 7–26.

Torgesen, J. K., & Burgess, S. R. (1998). 

Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early 

childhood: Evidence from longitudinalcorrelational and instructional studies. In J. Metsala, & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word 

recognition in beginning reading (pp. 

161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, 

A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf 

(Ed.), Time, fluency, and developmental 

dyslexia. Parkton, MD: York Press.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, 

C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of 

Reading, 1(3), 217–234.

Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., 

Wayne, S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997). 

The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring 

by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 126–139.
References

( 54 )

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. 

(2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction 

in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 

38(4), 364–380.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). A response to “Competing views: A dialogue 

on response to intervention.” Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 

58–61.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction 

as a means of identifying students with 

reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, 

S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English 

language learners at risk for reading 

problems. Elementary School Journal, 

107(2), 153–180.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S. 

G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. (2007). 

Preventing early reading difficulties 

through kindergarten and first grade 

intervention: A variant of the three-tier 

model. In D. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. K. 

Klinger (Eds.), Validated practices for 

three tiers of reading intervention (pp. 

186). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes 

Publishing Co.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. 

A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Researchbased implications from extensive early 

reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–562. 

Woodcock, R. W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery—revised. Chicago, IL: Riverside. 

Woodcock, R. W., & Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F. 

(1995). Woodcock language proficiency 

battery—revised: Spanish form. Itasca, 

IL: Riverside.