Core instruction is an important part of an effective response to intervention (RTI) model. To implement RTI effectively, school teams should regularly examine the effectiveness of their core instruction to determine if at least 80% of students meet the proficiency standard with core support alone. However, some educators may not have the skills necessary to hold a meeting that focuses exclusively on core instruction. To provide educators with a format to lead such a meeting, the authors describe a grade-level team meeting in which the purpose is to use data to analyze the effectiveness of core instruction in reading. A sample agenda and detailed case example are provided.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York; NY: Guilford.
3.
BatscheG.ElliottJ.GradenJ. L.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ. F.PrasseD. . . . TillyW. D. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Reston, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
4.
BollmanK. A.SilberglittB.GibbonsK. A. (2007). The St. Croix River Education District model: Incorporating systems-level organization and multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In JimersonS.BurnsM.VanDerHeydenA. (Eds.), Response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319–330). New York; NY: Guilford.
5.
BurnsM. K.AppletonJ. L.StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
6.
ChardD. J. (2012). Systems impact: Issues and trends in improving school outcomes for all learners through multitier instructional models. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(4), 198–202. doi:10.1177/1053451212462876
7.
ChristT. J. (2008). Best practices in problem analysis. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 159–176). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
8.
DalyE. J.MartensB. K. (1994). A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 459–469.
9.
DalyE. J.IIILentzF. E.Jr.BoyerJ. (1996). The instructional hierarchy: A conceptual model for understanding the effective components of reading interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 369–386.
10.
DenoS. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
GibbonsK.SilberglittB. (2008). Best practices in evaluation psychoeducational services based on student outcome data. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2103–2116). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
13.
GoodR. G.KaminskiR. A. (2011). DIBELS Next assessment manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
14.
GreenwoodC. R.KratochwillT. R.ClementsM. (2008). Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. New York: Guilford.
15.
HarnB. A.Kame’enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C. (2007). The nature and role of the third tier in a prevention model for kindergarten students. In HaagerD.KlingerJ.VaughnS. (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 161–184). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
HaydonT.ConroyM. A.ScottT. M.SindelarP. T.BarberB. R.OrlandoA. (2010). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(1), 27–40.
17.
HaydonT.MancilG. R.Van LoanC. (2009). Using opportunities to respond in a general education classroom: A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(2), 267–278.
18.
JacobsJ.GregoryA.HopperyD.Yendel-HoppeyD. (2009). Data literacy: Understanding teachers’ data use in a context of accountability and response to intervention. Action in Teacher Education, 31(3), 41–55.
19.
JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York; NY: Springer.
20.
McDonald ConnorS.PiastaS. B.FishmanB.GlasneyS.SchatschneiderC.CroweE.. . . MorrisonF. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child x instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Report of the National Reading Panel). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm
23.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425, 20 U. S. C, 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
24.
ShinnM. R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 671–693). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74, 71–84.
26.
TillyW. D.III. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem-solving and the three-tiered model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 17–35). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
27.
WhiteR. B.PollyD.AudetteR. H. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73–90.
