1. MTSS Essential Component: Evidence-Based Tier II
Module 6
Welcome participants to the module on MTSS.
Throughout this module, the notes will be formatted in the following way:
Notes for the facilitator:
Text formatted in standard font is intended to be read aloud by the facilitator.
Text formatted in italics is intended as directions or notes for the facilitator; italicized text is not meant to be read aloud.
Please refer to the accompanying facilitator guide for additional information and resources.
Materials:
Module 6 Participant’s Workbook

2. Welcome! Introductions Materials Parking lot
Introduction slides (slides 1–6) delivery time: 10 minutes
Please refer to the general facilitator guide for recommendations for participant introduction activities, recommended materials, and setting up a parking lot.

3. Introductory MTSS Module Series Overview
Implementation of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
MTSS Essential Component: Universal Screening
MTSS Essential Component: Data-Based Decision Making
MTSS Essential Component: High-Quality Tier I
MTSS Essential Component: Progress Monitoring
MTSS Essential Component: Evidence-Based Tier II
MTSS Essential Component: Data-based Individualization for Tier III
The Wyoming Department of Education (WDE), in partnership with American Institutes for Research, has developed this Introductory MTSS Professional Development series to support rollout of MTSS and the use of evidence-based practices. The WDE strongly believes implementation of MTSS can support districts in implementing several state initiatives, including the new MTSS District Coaching Project, the State Systemic Improvement Plan’s selection of MTSS as its improvement strategy, and efforts to improve chronically failing schools and increase student achievement.
Click for animation.
Today’s module, MTSS Essential Component: Evidence-Based Tier II, is the sixth of seven modules about MTSS. The remaining module will introduce you to the final essential component of MTSS, Data-based Individualization for Tier III. The content presented today should in no way be viewed as exhaustive or legally binding. You should continue to seek and participate in ongoing professional development related to the topics presented today and in future sessions.
Additional Resource: Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention, National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010 [
Briefly review module series overview.

4. Session Outcomes
By the end of this session, participants will be able to:
Explain the critical features of an MTSS Tier II system
Describe the essential elements of Tier II interventions
Select Tier II evidence-based practices (EBPs) using available resources
Apply the problem-solving process to individual data decision making at Tier II
Review slide.

5. Multi-tiered systems of support, or MTSS, in Wyoming is a preventative framework for school improvement made up of four core components. The four components are screening, multilevel prevention system (you may have heard this described as tiered instruction, or RTI, response to intervention), progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. MTSS in Wyoming also encompasses features such as culturally responsive instruction, family engagement, and evidence-based instruction. As you’ll notice in the graphic, each of the components and features contribute to improved student outcomes.
Today we will focus on Tier II, which is embedded in a multi-level prevention system, and informed by data-based decision making to lead to improved student outcomes.

6. Activator Activity: Which medical procedure would you choose?
Scenario
Option 1
Option 2 1
One shown to work MOST of the time
One shown to work SOME of the time 2
One recommended by a friend who heard it was good
One found to be effective in available published studies 3
One where the doctor uses a checklist to ensure all of the steps are followed
One where the doctor completes the procedure from memory 4
One that does not have evidence for people like me, but has been found effective for other people
One with no published evidence of its effectiveness but could potentially be effective
In this activity, you will discuss each of the four scenarios in which you were given two options for selecting a medical procedure. Look at the two options for scenario 1. Read the first two options. Which would you choose, Option 1 or Option 2? Turn and talk with the person next to you and discuss why you chose that option. Repeat these steps for the remaining scenarios and be prepared to share what evidence you felt was most important when selecting a medical procedure.
Provide 3-5 minutes.
Alternatively, you could have participants get up and talk with someone across the room, someone they have not met, and so on. Consider having participants find a new partner for each scenario to increase engagement.
Facilitate a whole-group discussion once everyone has discussed with their partner. Highlight the connection between selecting education interventions and selecting medical interventions.
Clip art: Creative Commons ; retrieved from

7. Critical Features of Tier II System
Section objective: Explain the critical features of a braided academic and behavior Tier II system
Key ideas:
Feature 1: Uses evidence-based intervention that support academic and behavior needs.
Feature 2: Complements core academic and behavior instruction/program.
Feature 3: Uses standardized interventions with appropriate dosage and grouping size delivered by trained personnel and implemented with fidelity.
Feature 4: Scheduled in addition to Tier I support
The HLPs introduced in Module 4: Tier I are intensified as the foundations for more targeted instruction and interventions
Delivery time: 20 – 30 minutes (Slides 7 – 11)

8. Thinking About Intervention Tiers
Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Instruction/
Intervention Approach
Comprehensive research-based curriculum
Standardized, targeted small-group instruction
Individualized, based on student data
Group Size
Class-wide (with some small group instruction)
3–7 students
No more than 3 students
Monitor Progress
1x per term
At least 1x per month
Weekly
Population Served
All students
At-risk students
Significant and persistent learning needs
Review table. Highlight the differences between the tiers in terms of:
Increasingly focused/tailored approach
Decreasing group size
Increasing frequency of progress monitoring
Increasing student need

9. Four Critical Features of Tier II
Uses evidence-based interventions that support academic and behavior needs
Complements core academic and behavior instruction/program
In previous modules, you explored the WY MTSS implementation rubric. Item 4b describes four critical features of the Tier II level. Let’s discuss those features now.
The WY MTSS implementation rubric is excerpted over the next few slides. The full rubric is available for download here:
All Tier II interventions are evidence-based in content areas and grade levels where they are available and they support academic and behavior needs. Tools for identifying evidence-based interventions will be discussed later in the presentation.
Tier II complements core instruction; specifically, it is well aligned with core instruction and incorporates foundational skills that support the learning objectives of core academic instruction and supports behavior programs.
Clipart retrieved from: Creative Commons license

10. Four Critical Features of Tier II
Uses standardized interventions with appropriate dosage and grouping size delivered by trained personnel with fidelity
Standardized intervention
uses research-based instructional programs
provided in a specific manner to students
typically includes a step-by-step sequence
(Vaughn et al., 2012)
Scheduled in addition to Tier I
The third critical feature pertains to the use of instructional characteristics. Specifically, all three of the following conditions are met: (1) interventions are standardized; (2) Tier II evel interventions are led by staff trained in the intervention according to developer requirements; and (3) group size and dosage are optimal (according to research) for the age and needs of students.
The fourth critical feature is that Tier II-level interventions supplement core instruction is scheduled in addition to Tier I.
Invite participants to discuss how they approach scheduling Tier II interventions in addition to Tier I
Clipart retrieved from: Creative Commons license

11. Activity 6.1: Self-Evaluation of Tier II System
Ask participants to locate Handout 6.1. and review the directions on Handout 6.1.
Clipart: Creative Commons license;
Handout 6.1

12. Elements of Tier II Interventions
So, what are the elements of Tier II interventions?
Slides 12 – 30; Estimated delivery time min
Optional WWC Scavenger Hunt Activity – Estimated delivery time min

13. Elements of Tier II Interventions
Evidence-Based Intervention
Fidelity
Adherence
Student Engagement
Program Specificity
Quality of Delivery
Exposure
Tier II interventions should be evidence-based and conducted with fidelity.
Click for animation.
First, let’s take a look at what it means for a Tier II intervention to be evidence-based.

14. Varying Evidence Standards
Research-Based Curricula
Evidence-Based Intervention
Recommended for Tier I across subjects
Components have been researched and found to be generally effective
Curriculum materials have not been rigorously evaluated as a package
Recommended for Tier II and Tier III
Materials evaluated using rigorous research design
Evidence of positive effects for students who received the intervention
There are varying levels of evidence for instruction and interventions delivered within an MTSS framework.
On the left, you’ll see research-based curricula. This is recommended for Tier I, or core instruction, across subjects. This means that the components have been researched and found to be generally effective, although the curriculum materials have not been rigorously evaluated as a package.
On the right side of your screen you’ll see evidence-based intervention. Evidence-based interventions are recommended for Tier II and Tier III. These materials are evaluated using rigorous research design, and there is evidence of positive effects for students who received the intervention. This means that programs have been rigorously evaluated as a whole, and that the specific intervention program was found to have positive effects for students receiving the intervention program.

15. Varying Evidence Standards (Examples)
This graphic illustrates an example of what a school’s reading instruction may look like at each tier. As you’ll see, the evidence standards for the instruction vary by tier. At the Tier I level reading instruction consists of research-based curricula. This means that the core curriculums are not evidence-based as a whole, but typically include research-based strategies and practices such as explicit instruction or partner reading.
At the Tier II level, interventions should be evidence-based interventions, researched as a whole for their effect on student learning outcomes.
Finally, at the Tier III or intensive level, schools should use adapted evidence-based interventions. In other words, Tier III depends on the adaptation of Tier II evidence-based interventions. Adaptations are be based on data to meet the unique needs of that student.

16. What to Look For When Examining the Published Evidence Base
Type/Source Population Desired Outcomes Effects
In order to ensure that a Tier II intervention program is evidence-based, teams should convene to review the existing research on that particular program.
You can focus your efforts by looking at these areas when examining the evidence base:
First, consider the type of information and source from which you are gathering this information. Is the information coming from the intervention vendor or a reputable website? Also ask yourself, what type of evidence is available? Did the study involve experimental design, where the intervention group was compared to an equivalent control group?
Next, consider the population. For which populations has the program been researched and found effective? Is the sample described? Is the population similar to or representative of your student population? Are there different effects for different population groups?
It is important to consider whether or not the desired outcomes assessed in a study are relevant to the outcomes you hope to achieve with an intervention.
Finally, consider the effects. Were the effects of the study large enough to be meaningful? Consider established guidelines for effect sizes when reviewing evidence on effectiveness. Sites including NCII’s Interventions Tools Chart, the What Works Clearinghouse, and the Best Evidence Encyclopedia all offer guidance when interpreting effect sizes.

17. Resources for Evaluating Evidence Base of Published Tier II Interventions
NCII Interventions Tools Chart
What Works Clearinghouse
Best Evidence Encyclopedia
e.org/
Model how to navigate at least the first two resources. If you are unable to model the site during the presentation, review the content of the resources on the next couple of slides. Participants may also wish to locate Handout 6.2, which outlines the features of the resources modeled on this slide.
After modeling the resources, ask participants to share out at their tables, with a partner, or as a whole-group using prompts such as the following:
Have you accessed any of these resources to identify of evaluate the Tier II interventions used at your site?
If you haven’t accessed any of these resources, identify one that you will access and describe how you might use it.
Handout 6.2

18. What If Evidence-Based Interventions Aren’t Available?
Use them when available and consider augmenting current offerings, if feasible.
Also consider:
Remediation materials that came with your core program materials
Expert recommendations (if evidence-based programs are not available)
Standards-aligned materials
In some content areas and grade levels, published evidence-based intervention programs may not be available.
Schools should use evidence-based intervention programs when available, and consider augmenting current offerings if feasible. If evidence-based interventions aren’t available, consider using remediation materials that came with your core program materials, expert recommendations, or standards-aligned materials.

19. What if Students Aren’t Responding to Tier II Interventions?
Evaluate the efficacy of the intervention for MOST students
Ensure implementation fidelity
Ensure staff are adequately trained to deliver the interventions
Ensure a match between the intervention outcomes and student needs
Adapt or change the intervention!
Not every students will respond to the same evidence-based intervention. Schools and districts should collect data to evaluate whether most students are responding to Tier II interventions. If most students are not responding, school and district teams must problem solve and identify whether it is an implementation issue (e.g., lack of fidelity, lack of teacher training) or an intervention issue (e.g., does not match student needs) before they can engage in individual problem solving. If only a few students are not responding, teams should do the following - ensure implementation fidelity, ensure staff are adequately trained to deliver the interventions, and ensure a match between the intervention outcomes and student needs – before changing or adapting the intervention.
Changing or adapting the intervention is the most resource intensive and should only be done when implementation and intervention factors have been ruled out. In Module 7: Data-Based Individualization for Tier III, you will learn more about how to use a systematic, validated process for intensifying Tier II interventions for students who do respond.

20. Reflection
Tier II interventions should be evidence-based in content areas and grade levels where they are available.
To what extent have we used evidence in the selection or development of our Tier II interventions?
Can we articulate that evidence to families and other educators? How?
Questions can be posed to the whole-group. Alternatively, first have participants discuss with a partner.
Clip art retrieved from: Creative Commons license

21. Elements of Tier II Interventions
Evidence-Based Intervention
Fidelity
Adherence
Student Engagement
Program Specificity
Quality of Delivery
Exposure
Now let’s discuss what it means to deliver Tier II interventions with fidelity.

22. What Is Fidelity?
Degree to which the program is implemented the way intended by program developer.
Fidelity = Consistency and Accuracy
Fidelity = Integrity
Fidelity refers to how closely prescribed procedures are followed, and in the context of schools, the degree to which teachers implement programs the way they were intended by the program developers. It also relates to the quality of the implementation.
This means that teachers are implementing the intervention with consistency and accuracy, and are adhering to the instructional plan with integrity.
Note: Throughout discussions of fidelity it is important to ensure that teachers believe that they work in an open, non-threatening environment that values their skills and expertise and where they can learn from their colleagues. With a system of open communication and productive feedback, fidelity checks of classroom techniques and the essential components of multi-tiered systems of support can be a useful and supportive way for teachers to collaborate and become a stronger teaching network. This may be a useful discussion point for some groups.
(Gersten et al., 2005; Mellard & Johnson, 2007; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009)

23. Why Is Fidelity Important?
Ensures that instruction has been implemented as intended Allows us to link student outcomes to instruction Helps in the determination of intervention effectiveness and instructional decision-making Positive student outcomes depend on level of fidelity of intervention implementation
Why is fidelity important? If teachers aren't consistent and accurate in delivering Tier II interventions, they aren’t able to confidently explain a student's lack of response to an intervention. Did the student make insufficient progress because they require more intensive intervention? Or, did the student make insufficient progress because the Tier II intervention wasn’t delivered with fidelity? Without practicing consistency and integrity in intervention delivery, we can't link, or attribute, student outcomes to the instruction provided. Fidelity allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of the Tier II intervention and tells us when a student may require a more intensive level of intervention.
Furthermore, Pierangelo and Giuliani (2008) concluded that positive student outcomes are particularly dependent on aspects of fidelity within the framework of a tiered support system. One of these aspects is fidelity of implementation at the classroom or teacher level.
(Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2008)

24. Five Elements of Fidelity
Student Engagement: How engaged and involved are the students in this intervention or activity?
Adherence: How well do we stick to the plan, curriculum, or assessment?
Program Specificity: How well is the intervention defined and different from other interventions?
Exposure/Duration: How often does a student receive an intervention? How long does an intervention last?
Refer participants to Handout 6.3. Encourage participants to record examples of what this looks like in the third column of the handout. After presenting the slide content, provide participants 3-5 minutes to talk with their neighbors about other examples of these five elements in action. Have them record their responses.
This graphic provides one example of a way to think about fidelity, and includes the elements of adherence, exposure, quality of delivery, program specificity, and student engagement.
Schools should have procedures in place to monitor the fidelity of their implementation of Tier II interventions. While these don’t have to be formal, it is important to consider whether or not they’re implementing programs the way that they are intended to be delivered. In the midst of all of the responsibilities of educators, small checks can make a big difference in keeping services for students on track.
Note: The notes on each element on fidelity are animated to pop up with each click. Click ahead each time you discuss a new element of fidelity, and click again to close that element.
(Click) When we discuss adherence we are focused on how well we stick to the plan/curriculum/assessment, or implementing the plan/curriculum/assessment as it was intended to be implemented based on research. For a Tier II intervention, this may mean how well teachers implement all pieces of an intervention, in the way they were intended to be implemented. This doesn’t necessarily mean that teachers should follow a script word for word, but that covering certain content with appropriate pacing and relevant language and techniques are important. (Click)
2. (Click) Duration/Exposure refers to how often a student receives an intervention and how long an intervention lasts. When thinking about fidelity we are considering whether the exposure/duration being used with a student matches the recommendation by the author/publisher of the curriculum.
In the case of Tier II interventions, developers and researchers typically specify the required exposure/duration that is needed for the intervention to be effective for most students. If the intervention developer calls for the intervention 3 days a week for 45 minutes each day, is the student receiving this dosage? (Click)
3. (Click) Not only is it important to adhere to the plan/curriculum/assessment, but it is also import to look at the quality of delivery. This refers to how well the intervention, assessment, or instruction is delivered. For example, do you use good teaching practices? Quality instructional delivery also means that teachers are engaged in what they’re teaching, and animated in their delivery, not simply reading from a script. Providing teachers with constructive feedback on their instructional delivery is one way to improve the quality of delivery for Tier II interventions. (Click)
4. (Click) Another component is program specificity, or how well the intervention is defined and how different it is from other interventions. Having clearly defined interventions/assessments allows teachers to more easily adhere to the program as defined. Is the intervention a good match for the student’s needs? Or does every low reader get the same intervention? (Click)
5. (Click) Just as quality of delivery is critical, it also is important to also focus on student engagement, or how engaged and involved the students are in the intervention or activity. Following a prescribed program alone is often not enough. Consider whether or not competing behaviors make it difficult for students to take part in the intervention as designed. During the delivery of Tier II interventions, teachers may need to use behavior management strategies to manage student behaviors, including providing choice, adding elements of competition, and offering frequent opportunities to respond. (Click)
Quality of Delivery: How well is the intervention, assessment, or instruction delivered? Do you deliver instruction using high leverage practices?
Handout 6.3
(Dane & Schneider, 1998; Gresham et al., 1993; O’Donnell, 2008)

25. High-Leverage Practices (HLPs) in Tier II
High-leverage practices introduced in Module 4 are intensified as the foundation for more targeted instruction and interventions
HLP Examples:
Explain and model content, practices, strategies
Coordinate and adjust instruction during a lesson
Specify and reinforce productive student behavior
How many of you included implementation of high leverage practices in the third columns for quality of delivery? Encourage participants to include this if they have not done so.
As you learned on the previous slide, quality of delivery is important in implementing interventions with fidelity. In Module 4, you were introduced to high leverage practices. High-leverage practices are the basic fundamentals of good teaching. When used consistently, they are critical to helping students learn important content efficiently and effectively. Module 4 introduced high leverage practices in the context of delivering high quality Tier I. However, high-leverage practices are used across subject areas, grade levels, and contexts. Similar to Tier I, Tier II interventions – teacher created or published -- are delivered using high leverage practices.
Note: This is an animated slide. Click to introduce three examples of HLPs introduced in Module 4. See the link for a full list of HLPs:
Sources: McLesky & Brownell, 2015; Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012

26. Monitoring Tier II Fidelity of Implementation – Examples
Element
Data Source Examples
Adherence
Self-report, observation checklist
Duration/exposure
Self-report, observation
Quality of delivery
Observation, reflection, self-report on techniques used
Program specificity
Intervention component checklist
Student engagement
Student progress, student survey
Refer participants to the last column of Handout 6.3. Encourage participants to record examples of possible data sources presented on the slide. After presenting the slide content, provide participants 3-5 minutes to identify additional examples of what evidence could be used to assess if these elements of fidelity were addressed in the delivery of the Tier II intervention.
Review slide.
Handout 6.3
Sources: Dane & Schneider, 1998; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; O’Donnell, 2008

27. Monitoring Implementation Fidelity Checklist Resource
Tools provided with intervention RTI Action Network Resources
There are many examples of fidelity tools that teams could consider.
Review slide.

28. Tier II Fidelity of Implementation: Reflect
How can we ensure fidelity of implementation of Tier II Interventions? What are some examples that have worked well at your site(s)?
Encourage participants to share out about processes and procedures they use to ensure fidelity of implementation. For additional ideas in advance of the presentation, please see
Clipart retrieved from: Creative Commons license

29. Video: Wyoming Tier II Example
Example of WY school explaining or modeling Tier II in their school
Following the video, pause for a reflection activity. Ask participants to share reflections, questions, or connections that came up from the video.
Sample prompts for discussion:
How is Tier II scheduled?
Who delivers Tier II instruction?
What approaches are used in Tier II instruction and why?

30. Optional Team Activity: What Works Clearing House Scavenger Hunt
Identifying and evaluating evidence base for Tier II interventions
The purpose of this OPTIONAL activity is to provide individuals or teams an opportunity to explore a commonly used resource for identifying and evaluating the evidence base of Tier II interventions.
Website link:
Estimated time: minutes
Grouping: Partners or school teams. This activity is not recommended for individuals to complete during the session.
If not completed during the session, encourage participants to complete the activity or utilize the tools to evaluate current interventions.
A Find What Works Video Tour is available on the WWC website here: The link is included on Handout 6.4.
Clip art: Creative Commons
Handout 6.4

31. Tier II Decision Making
Section objective: Apply the problem solving method to individual data decision making at Tier II.
Slides ; Estimated delivery time: min

32. Tier II: Applying the Wyoming Problem Solving Process
DATA
Why is this happening?
What should be done?
What is the problem?
Did it work?
Review steps. For more information about the problem solving process, encourage participants to review Module 3 MTSS Essential Component: Data-Based Decision Making and its accompanying handouts.

33. Tier II Problem Solving Process: Student Behavior Example—Michael
Step 1. What is the problem? Michael was identified as having externalizing behavior problems in January of his fourth-grade year due to an excessive number of office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) and frequently instigated fights with other students. Step 2. Why is this happening? The grade level team hypothesizes that Michael lacks consistent feedback about appropriate behavior and struggles with motivation.
In this case study, we will apply the problem solving process for a student receiving Tier II behavior supports.
Read slide.
Handout 6.5

34. Step 3. What should be done? Tier II Behavior Intervention: Michael
Check-in/Check-out Procedures
Dedicated staff person “checks in” with the student to get ready for the day
Teachers provide feedback on student goals (aligned to school-wide expectations) throughout the day
Dedicated staff person “checks out” with the student to reflect on the day
Student accumulates points that can be traded at predetermined times for activities, prizes, or free time
Staff collect data daily and review student progress weekly
Read slide.
For more information on CICO, see these and other resources from the OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS),
School-Wide Tier II Interventions: Check-In Check-Out Getting Started Workbook.
Presentations on CICO
Check In Check Out: A Targeted Intervention (PBIS in Costa Mesa, CA),
The Behavior Education Program (BEP): Advanced Training on a Check In/Check Out Intervention for Students at Risk (Chicago Forum-07),
The Behavior Education Program (BEP): Basic Steps of Check In/Check Out (Chicago Forum-07),

35. Step 3. What should be done? Michael’s Check-in/Check-out Card
GOALS
Period 1
Period 2
Period 3
Lunch
Recess
Period 4
Period 5
Be Safe 
Be Respectful
Work Hard 
TOTAL 
While Michael is receiving CICO as a standardized Tier II intervention, his progress is being monitored with the school’s standard CICO card.
For each period of the school day, the appropriate teacher will rate how well, on a scale of 0–2, Michael met the three school-wide expectations.
Two measures of Michael’s behavior will be collected—the points earned on his CICO card and his office discipline referrals (ODRs). His teacher uses a brief, self-assessment checklist to verify that the intervention is implemented according to recommended procedures.
ODRs: collected on all students
Progress monitoring tool: Check-in/Check-out point card, collected at regular intervals throughout the day
0 = Goal not met = Goal partially met = Goal fully met

36. Step 4. Did it Work? Progress Monitoring: Michael
Refer participants to Handout 6.6 and briefly review the components of the graphed data (e.g., goal line, data points, ODRs). Participants will use these data to complete Handout 6.5.
Handout 6.5

37. Step 4: Tier II Decision Making: Considerations+ - ?
Refer participants to Handout 6.5 which includes Step 4 of the problem solving worksheet.
With your partner/team, evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and record your decision in Step 4 of the problem solving process handout.
Provide partners 3-5 minutes to identify whether they believe the response was positive, questionable, or poor and then identify next steps and evidence to support their response.
NOTE: Michael’s data indicate a positive response. Given that his performance is not yet consistent, the team may decide to continue the intervention or may choose to fade to a less intensive intervention.
Review possible decisions and next steps, if needed.
• A positive response is when:
– The gap is closing.
– You can extrapolate the point at which target student(s) will “come in range” of the target, even if this is long range, or when the level of “risk” lowers over time.
If the response is positive, you may:
• Continue the intervention with the current goal,
• Continue the intervention with the goal increased, or
• Fade the intervention to determine if student(s) have acquired mastery and independence of the necessary skills.
• A poor or negative response is when the gap continues to widen with no change in the rate of student progress. This is when your team will want to refer to your decision rules and determine if the intervention should be changed or intensified.
Finally, a questionable response is when the gap is widening but slows considerably; however, the gap is still widening. This may be a time to ask if the intervention was implemented as intended.
Again, the problem-solving process is cyclical. If the gap stops widening but closure does not occur, go back to Step 1 of the problem-solving process.
Handout 6.5

38. Tier II Problem Solving Process: Student Academic Example—Jane
Step 1. What is the problem? Classroom and screening data indicate that Jane is at-risk for reading difficulties. Although she is a third grader, she is reading at an early second-grade level. Step 2. Why is this happening? The grade level team reviewed running records conducted by the classroom teacher and other classroom data and hypothesized she lacks appropriate phonological awareness, word study, and fluency skills.
Let’s apply the same process to Jane, who is struggling in reading.
Read slide.

39. Step 3. What should be done? Tier II Reading Intervention: Jane
Intervention Dimensions
Group size: 6 students
Session length: 30 minutes per session
Frequency: 3 sessions per week
Program duration: 7 weeks
Instructional content and delivery: explicit instruction covering all components laid out in the instruction manual
Progress Monitoring Plan
Passage Reading Fluency (PRF)
Collected and graphed weekly
Jane’s teacher made sure to implement the program with fidelity by following key components of the intervention (review slide).
Caveat: A small number of students may present with very significant academic or behavioral difficulties where a standardized Tier II intervention is unlikely to be effective. Intervention teams may choose to bypass the Tier II intervention program in favor of moving directly to intensive intervention in these instances. However, decisions to bypass a standardized Tier II program should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis. Progress monitoring data should be reviewed regularly to determine if the student is making progress in his or her intervention program. This will be discussed in Module 7 Tier III Interventions.

40. Step 4. Did it work? Progress Monitoring: Jane
This graph shows Jane’s reading progress monitoring data using Passage Reading Fluency, with scores in correct words read per minute. The first three scores, before the first vertical line, show her baseline reading assessments. The X on this line shows her average baseline score. This score is connected with her target score, the X on the far right, to form the goal line. The second set of scores was collected during Jane’s time in the Tier II reading intervention. You can see that all of these scores are below the goal line, suggesting that Jane is not responding to the Tier II intervention as expected.
Handout 6.6

41. Step 4: Tier II Decision Making: Considerations+ - ?
Refer participants to Handout 6.6 which includes Step 4 of the problem solving worksheet.
With your partner/team, evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and record your decision in Step 4 of the problem solving process handout.
Provide partners 3-5 minutes to identify whether they believe the response was positive, questionable, or poor and then identify next steps and evidence to support their decision. Briefly discuss participant responses.
Note: Jane is making progress but the progress is not adequate for her to reach her goal. Teams should be looking to change the intervention in some way. One recommendation would be to increase the frequency since it is working but not as quickly as expected.
Handout 6.6

42. Team decides to change the frequency from 3 to 5 days per week
Step 3. Since it didn’t work as expected, what should be done? Tier II Reading Intervention: Jane
Intervention Dimensions
Group size: 6 students
Session length: 30 minutes per session
Frequency: 5 sessions per week
Program duration: 7 weeks
Instructional content and delivery: explicit instruction covering all components laid out in the instruction manual
Progress Monitoring Plan
Passage Reading Fluency (PRF)
Collected and graphed weekly
Team decides to change the frequency from 3 to 5 days per week
The team determined that while she was making progress, it was not sufficient to meet the goal. Jane’s teacher confirmed that each component of the program was delivered with fidelity (review dimensions of intervention and progress monitoring plan as needed). After reviewing the data, the team determines that the intervention is having positive effects but does not seem to be intensive enough at Tier II. They decide to increase the frequency of the intervention but not change the intervention. The team will indicate the change in the progress monitoring
NOTE: The increase in frequency does not necessarily change the intervention from Tier II to Tier III. Tier III adaptions and intensification are reserved for students who have persistent and significant learning needs. The difference between Tier II and III will be discussed in more detail in Module 7.
Caveat: A small number of students may present with very significant academic or behavioral difficulties where a standardized Tier II intervention is unlikely to be effective. Intervention teams may choose to bypass the Tier II intervention program in favor of moving directly to intensive intervention in these instances. However, decisions to bypass a standardized Tier II program should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis. Progress monitoring data should be reviewed regularly to determine if the student is making progress in his or her intervention program. This will be discussed in Module 7 Tier III Interventions.

43. Step 4. Did the change to Tier II work? Progress Monitoring: Jane
After the change in the intervention (indicated by the red dashed line), the team continued to monitor using the procedures outlined in the progress monitoring plan. What was the impact of the new Tier II intervention: positive, questionable, or poor? What next steps should the team take given these data?
Provide partners/teams 2-3 minutes to discuss the impact of the change in the Tier II intervention.
This graph shows Jane’s reading progress monitoring data using Passage Reading Fluency. The first three scores, before the first vertical line, show her baseline reading assessments. The X on this line shows her average baseline score. The X on the far right represents her goal and helps form the goal line. The second set of scores was collected during Jane’s time in the Tier II reading intervention. The third set, after the red line were collected after the additional time was added. The data suggest that Jane is responding to the Tier II intervention with additional sessions.

44. Demo/Video: Model Problem Solving for Tier II Data

45. Making Decisions about Overall Efficacy of Interventions
Comparing average progress monitoring scores of different interventions helps us answer questions such as:
Are most students in Tier II benefitting from the intervention?
Which interventions lead to higher growth rates and increased student outcomes?
In Module 3, you were introduced to the importance for monitoring the effectiveness of the MTSS system and individual tiers of instruction. Similar to Tier I, it is important to confirm that Tier II is working for most students once interventions have been in place for a period of time. Specifically, comparing the average progress monitoring scores of students in different intervention groups allows practitioners to compare and contrast the efficacy of interventions. Average progress monitoring data by intervention type can help us answer questions such as:
Are most students in Tier II benefitting from the intervention?
Which interventions lead to higher growth rates and increased student outcomes?
Because the continued use of ineffective interventions can be costly and harmful to students (increases the learning gap) over time, it is helpful to consider these questions.
Note: This is a more advanced data technique that many schools may not be collecting the appropriate data for. To compare interventions, predefined interventions must be used over a period of time. Advanced modules describe how schools and districts can conduct this type of analysis.

46. Closing and Next Steps
Slides 46 – 50; Estimated delivery time: 10 min

47. Revisit and Turn and Talk
How will you apply what you learned today to your classroom practice?
Invite participants to turn and talk with someone nearby. Ask them to share a specific example of an instructional practice or resource they will apply after participation in today’s module. Debrief as a large group.
Clip art: Creative Commons

48. Resources: Wyoming MTSS Implementation Supports
The WDE provides districts numerous resources to support MTSS implementation through the Wyoming Project WIN site. Several of the resources discussed in the module are featured on the main page.
Optional: Link to live site and demo some of the resources available if time allows.

49. Resources NCII Interventions Tools Chart What Works Clearinghouse
What Works Clearinghouse
Best Evidence Encyclopedia
RTI Action Network Fidelity Resources
High-Leverage Practices
Direct the participants to these available resources. The first three are also included in Handout 6.2 with more detail about the content at each site.

50. Next Steps
Complete the Module 6 Quiz Optional Team Activity: What Works Clearinghouse Scavenger Hunt Complete Module 7
Review next steps.

51. For More Information
Bart Lyman Wyoming State MTSS Coach Jennifer Hiler Wyoming State Personnel Development Grant Program Manager

52. References

53. References
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary level and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional children, 71(2), Gresham, F. M., Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Cohen, S. (1993). Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980–1990. School Psychology Review. McLeskey, J., & Brownell, M. (2015). High-Leverage Practices and Teacher Preparation in Special Education. Mellard, D., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. .

54. References
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84. Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. (2008). Teaching students with learning disabilities: A step-by- step guide for educators. Corwin Press. Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 445. Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A. A., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., & Denton, C. A. (2012). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children. 77(4) Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science education, 96(5),