Running Head: IMPACT OF TIERED READING INSTRUCTION IMPACT OF ENHANCING CORE READING INSTRUCTION IN TIER 1, 2 AND 3 MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS A Doctoral Capstone Project Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Kara Elizabeth Eckert California University of Pennsylvania July 2020 California University of Pennsylvania School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction iii Acknowledgements The past two years have been filled with exciting and challenging moments, and through it all, my support system has kept me motivated. Thank you to my inner circle of friends and colleagues that cheered me on, talked through assignments and research, reviewed drafts, provided feedback, and encouraged me every step of the way. Thank you to the many inspiring faculty members of California University, especially Dr. Mary Wolf for your guidance throughout this process. Thank you to my long-time colleague and friend, Dr. Wesley Shipley, you have been my biggest cheerleader for work and school over the past ten years. Thank you to my parents for supporting my dreams and providing me a pathway to turn them into a career. Thank you to my husband, Jim, for being by my side through all of life’s challenges and successes, I wouldn’t be who I am today without you. To my children, Emma and Brady, thank you for understanding how important this process has been to me and for allowing me the time I need to complete research and assignments. Your support, excitement and words of encouragement meant more than anything as I sacrificed many precious hours over the past two years. It is my hope that I have set a positive example of perseverance, challenge and drive toward success for you as you continue your pathway to your future. I am looking forward to where my passions and journey will take me next. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments iii Abstract ix List of Tables vii List of Figures viii CHAPTER I. Introduction 1 CHAPTER II. Literature Review 7 Universal Screeners 12 Progress Monitoring 15 Data Analysis 16 Foundational Components of Reading 17 Instructional Approaches to Early Literacy 23 Core and Supplemental Reading Program 27 Early Literacy Instructional Materials 30 Reading Instruction in an Elementary Classroom 32 Delivery of Instruction 37 Fidelity of Implementation 38 Conclusion 40 CHAPTER III. Methodology 42 Introduction 42 Purpose 43 Setting and Participants 55 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction v Intervention and Research Plan 58 Potential Financial Implications 65 Research Design, Methods and Data Collection 69 Validity 71 Triangulate Data 72 Summary 73 CHAPTER IV. Results 74 Introduction 74 Results 75 Discussion 105 Summary 104 CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations 106 Study Implications 107 Research Question 1 108 Research Question 2 112 Research Question 3 115 Research Conclusions 118 Financial Implications 120 Reflective Planning 123 Implications for Future Research 125 Implications for Practice 126 Summary 127 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction vi References 129 APPENDIX A. 136 APPENDIX B. 138 APPENDIX C. 139 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction vii List of Tables Table 1. AIMSweb Second Grade Cut Scores for R-CBM 51 Table 2. AIMSweb Second Grade Cut Scores for Maze 52 Table 3. Acadience Second Grade ORF Scores 53 Table 4. AIMSweb Benchmark Scores for R-CBM and Maze 83 Table 5. AIMSweb Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges 84 Table 6. Acadience Reading Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges 85 Table 7. AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for R-CBM 87 Table 8. AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for Maze 87 Table 9. Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF- 89 Accuracy Table 10. Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF- 89 Fluency Table 11. AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - R-CBM 91 Table 12. AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - Maze 91 Table 13. Acadience ORF-Accuracy Scores 92 Table 14. Accidence Within Tier 1 ORF-Fluency 92 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction viii List of Figures Figure 1. RtI Triangle 8 Figure 2. Dimensions of Literacy 28 Figure 3. Fall Composite Scores 77 Figure 4. Winter Composite Scores 78 Figure 5. Growth Rate Between Tiers with AIMSweb 79 Figure 6. Growth Rate Between Tiers with Acadience Reading 81 Figure 7. Rating Scale Questions and Responses 93 Figure 8. Open-Ended Responses from Voluntary Grade 2 Teacher Survey 97 Figure 9. Fidelity Checks - Instructional Groups 101 Figure 10. Fidelity Checks - Organizational Delivery of Materials 102 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction ix Abstract The focus of this action research project was to gather information regarding instructional success in reading while implementing varying interventions in tiered approaches within a newly implemented Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework in second grade. Two cohort years were utilized for the data analysis to demonstrate movement based upon instructional and programmatic changes in implementation year one and two. The data was collected through three sources of assessments, fidelity checks in classrooms, and teacher input from a voluntary teacher survey response. All data was based upon a second grade level for reading instruction as part of a multi-tiered system of supports model. All teachers who participated in the survey provided responses voluntarily based upon their perception of the effectiveness of MTSS, What I Need (WIN) time data and instructional resources. The purpose was to determine if tiered instruction impacted student growth during set intervention periods for reading instruction at the second grade level. The results of the research indicate that minimal growth was made within each cohort year after implementing tiered interventions. Although growth was evident, the data did not demonstrate a clear picture of what components were more successful than others. Increasing the amount of instructional time for interventions during WIN, securing and aligning more specific intervention resources for teachers at all tier levels and allowing teachers the time to gain a deeper understanding of MTSS would be beneficial in continuous improvement. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 1 CHAPTER I Introduction Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) for English Language Arts is the premise for the action research conducted in this study. In response to a Pennsylvania Special Education audit stating that the district was not meeting the needs of all learners, a MTSS framework was established and implemented in 2018-2019 for K-6 students focusing on English Language Arts. Additionally, As the Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Innovative Practices within the district for three years, it was evident that a curriculum and instructional change was critical for improvement in the elementary grades to support the tenants of implementing MTSS with fidelity. As part of the audit, the district was to create a viable action plan and it was determined that the K-6 schools must establish a model of intervention supports for all students as a means to provide integrated instructional interventions. These interventions were to be based upon data from benchmark screenings three times per year. Explicit intervention tools were to be used in Tier 2 and Tier 3, and additional time for skill-based instruction would strengthen the core Tier 1 content exposure for all students. Reading Specialists were assigned at the K-4 buildings to support the at-risk population of students not meeting benchmark prior to being referred for special education evaluation. For years, the district’s response to the students’ lack of success to core curriculum was a referral to a special education evaluation, which in turn, drastically increased the number of students requiring formal evaluations. It also impacted the increasing number of students qualifying for an academic IEP. Not many classroom RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 2 support systems were in place, other than Title 1 reading instruction for a small percentage of students who met the qualifications. The district was seeing a rapid increase of students who were referred for special education evaluations, and when they did not qualify, the district fell short on providing appropriate levels of instruction to meet their individual needs. The district operated a traditional instructional model emphasizing the implementation of purchased core materials for whole-group as the sole approach. Instruction was very segmented and methodical according to what was outlined in the textbook series which was taught unit by unit. The concerning audit outcomes provided the push that the district needed to begin putting the proper components into place. The development and implementation of MTSS was created based upon the recommendations of Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and training models from Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN). Teachers received training from district administrators at the start of the 2018-2019 school year, which identified the multi-year process and expectations. During the course of the 2018-2019 school year, the district participated in two MTSS cohorts sponsored by PDE and PaTTAN for early literacy and elementary academic/behavior interventions. The cohorts allowed district administrators and teachers to attend six professional development sessions, off-site, to learn and understand a deeper foundation of MTSS. It also required the participants to put the learning into practice and complete a district-based case study on student data and interventions for a K-1 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 3 student in ELA and a Grade 3-6 student for behavior. The end goal was to determine the program needs and supports, as well as to identify future needs and the sustainability of MTSS K-6. Through this work, it was determined that the district needed a behavioral screening tool and more direct phonemic awareness and phonics intervention tools at the early elementary grades. Both items were purchased through the cohort grant stipend, but the subsequent training did not occur for the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) intervention materials in Grades 1 and 2 due to a lack of supporting district funding. Intervention materials were purchased and implemented at the K-4 levels for Tier 2 and Tier 3 based upon the reading specialist’s recommended needs of previous student data. One newly purchased program was Leveled Literacy Interventions (LLI) for leveled literacy and achievement levels. Fountas and Pinnel’s LLI program is an intensive, small-group, supplementary literacy intervention for students who find reading and writing difficult (2019). The goal of LLI is to lift the literacy achievement of students who are not achieving grade-level expectations in reading. The LLI systems uses close reading strategies to expand a students’comprehension skills with more exposure to text (Fountas & Pinnell, 2020). Another intervention purchased was RaveO. It is a small-group, evidence-based literacy intervention curriculum for students in grades 2–4, which empowers students to read text deeply to build new knowledge, develop new ideas, and reach new levels of reading achievement (Engaging SmallGroup Literacy Instruction, 2020). Both reading interventions are utilized as a main RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction method of instructional delivery in Tier 2 and 3 settings. The K-4 core reading series is McGraw Hill Wonders 2014, which has been used with fidelity as the core instructional delivery method for six years. Finally, teacher “clusters” were formed to allow for a better structure of data-teaming and instructional delivery at each grade level. The basis of this research study is to focus on second grade and the levels of interventions provided to students at the 3 tiers, their effectiveness, student response to the interventions based upon their data from universal screeners used 3 times per year, and the movement of students between tiers. Through this research, the goal is to determine the overall effectiveness of the MTSS framework in place, and to determine if the core instructional resources are supporting 80% of the students’ needs, as well as how effective the current purchased intervention materials are working for the remaining 20% of students in Tiers 2 and 3. In addition to assessment data, teacher feedback will be collected on a voluntary basis at two points in the year to see what teacher’s initial thoughts are for the program as it stands in January 2020 and June 2020 to determine the growth and direction for the following year’s improvements. Assessment data collected will be from the 2018-2019 second grade student cohort. Two different data subgroups will be randomly sampled from a second grade cohort in the year that MTSS was initially implemented, and the second subgroup will be randomly selected using the 2019-2020 data with full-year MTSS implementation. Both data analyses looked at the rate of improvement between the fall, winter and 4 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 5 spring benchmark assessments for reading. The assessment tools used to monitor student progress will be AIMSweb from 2018-2019 and Acadience Reading (2019-2020). Both assessments measure very similar components of early reading indicators and give a solid foundation of data to compare and identify patterns in instruction, intervention and movement of students between tiers in the second grade. The second grade was targeted due to its role in the literacy development of students. By the second grade, students have been exposed to the foundational skills of language and they are applying those skills into reading. They are at the cusp of becoming fluent readers that are grasping deeper levels of understanding through comprehension, writing, and expanding vocabulary. With MTSS beginning in 2018-2019, the students in second grade have had a year and a half of a new intervention framework designed to support their needs. The study focuses on the effectiveness of the framework in place, the interventions and the movement between tiers. To dig deeper into the research, this study will focus on the following questions: 1. How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student response to the core instruction and interventions in place? 2. Are the instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students? 3. What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 6 reading achievement? As the district’s Director of Curriculum and Instruction, it is crucial to know and understand the effectiveness of the resources and programs in place. The district is entering into a K-12 English-Language Arts curriculum revision cycle, and this data will provide a solid understanding of the MTSS framework, the core program and intervention success rate. The results of the action research will become a guide of where the district should proceed as they continue to plan and improve instruction, delivery of content, interventions and assessments for all students. As a result of this study, time and money will be invested into the improvement planning and implementation of newly written and aligned curriculum for the elementary grades, the potential purchase of more effectively aligned resources, more relevant professional development for teachers and for additional personnel to fully support the tiered instructional framework. The outcome desired is to fully understand and grasp the effectiveness of programs in place to ensure the alignment of appropriate materials, as well as using data to make informed instructional decisions to benefit all learners. Curriculum development and implementation is the most critical component in a school, and it is well worth the financial and personnel investments made to allow all students to achieve and grow academically to their greatest ability. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 7 CHAPTER II Literature Review Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RtI) are interchangeable terms that can frequently be used to describe a framework that supports multiple intervention levels, or tiers, of academic supports. Many point to the 2004 U.S. federal authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) as the birth of RtI as we know it. MTSS represents an overarching umbrella of intervention supports for Reading, Math and Behavior. MTSS has combined the intervention supports from the RtI model and the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system to create a comprehensive approach to students who are in need of leveled supports. The focus of this research will strictly be for reading interventions. MTSS has three basic required features: The first component is matching high quality research-based intervention to student’s educational and behavioral needs. Second, progress monitoring is used to assess the need for changes in instruction or goals. Third, student response’s from progress monitoring data is the basis of important educational decisions, which might include additional levels or tiers of instructional intensity or possibly eligibility for special education. (Bianco, 2010, p. 4) As part of MTSS, universal screening tools should be used to determine academic benchmarks three times a year, as well as for continuous academic monitoring to define the rate of progress as a response to the intervention in place. Universal screening tools provide a snapshot assessment for all students on basic reading, math and behavioral RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 8 skills per grade level, to help determine the appropriate placement for academic instruction and support. Data-teaming discussions between teachers, reading specialists, administrators, parents and school psychologists should occur on a regular basis to make instructional decisions and intervention adjustments based upon active data points. For reading, the recommended target areas for early screening and progress monitoring are for letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation, nonsense word fluency, word identification, and oral reading fluency (United States Department of Education, 2009). The process of MTSS begins with the identification of a student’s academic or behavior level through a universal screening assessment, such as AIMSweb 1.0 or Acadience Reading, as a benchmark of growth and a student’s response to intervention. A universal screening tool is administered to all students to receive baseline data. A recognizable component of MTSS is the ubiquitous triangle that represents the three levels of prevention and types of supports for students in tiered instruction (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Figure 1 RtI Triangle. From McREL International, 2019. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 9 “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” (United States Department of Education, 2009, p. 4). Interventions aligned with the individual student needs in reading occur outside of the core reading instructional time. RtI becomes an extension of the skills taught at a more intensive and focused approach driven by the results of the benchmark and progressmonitoring data collected throughout the duration of the intervention period. The three tiers represent the various levels of intervention to be taught to students who fall into that specific category based upon their current reading levels and data. Tier 1 instruction generally houses the core reading instruction to traditionally 80% of the students. In some cases, Tier 1 instruction is a part of the core reading instruction block, or it can be provided in addition to the core reading instruction. During Tier 1, high-quality evidence-based reading instruction occurs with the implementation of a basal reading series or a program with balanced, explicit, and systematic reading instruction (United States Department of Education, 2009). Core reading instruction can consist of wholelanguage balanced literacy series or a system of supplemental foundational reading programs that support the foundational reading skills at the early literacy stage. An example of a core reading series is McGraw Hill’s Reading Wonders 2014, which is a systematic language arts curriculum that offers whole group reading, small group differentiated instruction, and whole group language arts (Morin, Dorsey, Bell, & Welsh, 2013). RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 10 As instruction is offered at each tier, more intensive interventions play a role with more fidelity and intensity based upon the student’s learning needs. Tier 2 interventions are provided to students demonstrating increased need based on screening tools or insufficient progress from core instruction occurring at the Tier 1 level (United States Department of Education, 2009). Students who are performing slightly below the benchmark level on the universal screener at any point in the year will be placed into a Tier 2 intervention level. Tier 2 typically represents 10%-15% of the student population in a grade level. Student progress is closely monitored on a bi-monthly basis to determine their Rate of Improvement (ROI). Students who are performing well below benchmark, or who are not responding to any interventions occurring in Tier 2, would be placed in a Tier 3 intervention where they would require more intensive assistance with specially designed instruction. These intensive interventions are based upon the targeted areas of need defined by the progress monitoring or benchmark data, and represent approximately 5% of the student population for a particular grade level. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) and the National Academy of Sciences both reported that schools needed to place more emphasis on the interventions prior to special education identification process (Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; IES Practical Guide, 2009, p. 5). Most recently, with a focus on improving outcomes for all students, especially those who have been historically underserved, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) suggested that schools and districts implement a tiered system of support and allow states flexibility in developing their MTSS model for both behavior and academic needs (2017). There are a variety of RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 11 universal screening tools to choose from that offer all of these targeted areas, and such tools should be selected based upon their reliability and alignment with the recommended levels posted on the websites for National Center on Progress Monitoring, and Response to Intervention (United States Department of Education, 2009). Within the actual instructional tiers, interventions are differentiated based upon the data representing the students’ needs. Tiered interventions are best to occur for 30-40 minutes daily, outside of the 90-minute core reading instruction. Interventions must be research-based, evidencebased, and used with fidelity to ensure that students are able to strengthen their foundational skills in order to grow and apply to reading. Providing interventions with fidelity will only increase the probability that more students would make significant growth. With a focus area of second grade, according to the Institute for Educational Science, foundational reading skills consist of: phonics, fluency with connected text, vocabulary and comprehension (2019). Phonics interventions for second grade concentrate on learning more difficult skills, such as digraphs, diphthongs, and controlled R. In addition to phonics skills, fluency should continuously be stressed (United States Department of Education, 2009). The MTSS framework is a fluid system of interventions where students have the ability, based upon what their data represents, to move between tiers. Movement between tiers can only occur once the data supports changes, or after 4-6 weeks of intervention and progress monitoring. Change can move between a tier depending on what the data represents for each student. The MTSS framework in a school depends on the support of RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 12 all teachers, reading specialists, paraprofessionals, administrators, students and parents. It is a team approach and focuses on providing the aligned supports for each child. Universal Screeners A critical component of MTSS is the universal screening tool and its supporting data. Screening tools produce data with which to identify students who may be in need of additional supports beyond Tier 1 to be successful (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). There are several types of universal screening tools to be used for students in reading. Universal screening data is used to determine if there are enhancements needed in the core curriculum, instruction, and/or general educational environment, as well as to guide decisions about supplemental or intensive interventions for students who may need additional support (Ikeda, Neesen, & Witt, 2007). Universal screening tools are used as a benchmark assessment administered by classroom teachers, reading specialists, or other instructional support personnel. The data is collected and analyzed in several ways by teams either at an individual, classroom, grade or building level. Universal screening tools are essentially worthless if they are not aligned to the general curriculum and instruction and used to seek improvements with student achievement (Ikeda et. al., 2007). Screening tools help to identify strengths and weakness of students by a snapshot approach to foundational reading skills. They provide immediate feedback for teachers in a quick assessment approach to make instructional changes in a timely manner. Screening is a major asset in the early stages of problem analysis (Ikeda et. al., 2007). This screening process typically occurs three times a year; at the beginning of the school year as a benchmark assessment, at the mid-point of the year, and at the end of the school RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 13 year. The importance of universal screening is that students who are at risk for academic failure can be identified early and proactively (Ikeda et. al, 2007). Universal screeners provide an avenue for teachers to make instructional change to individual, small group or whole group instruction. The data-analysis team in a school can meet to discuss the gaps presented in the curriculum as represented by the screening results, and then narrow down the instructional changes and adaptations to be made to ensure student success at the levels in which they are performing. While there are many different types of screening tools that districts can use, for the sake of this research. Acadience Reading (formerly Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy, or DIBELS) will be referenced. Acadience Reading allows students to quickly apply their knowledge to basic scenarios focused on the following grade levelspecific criteria measures: phonemic awareness through first sound fluency or phoneme segmentation, letter naming fluency, nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency including retell and a maze for reading comprehension (Acadience Reading K-6, 2019). Within the Acadience reading screening tool, teachers can administer the benchmark assessments three times yearly, as well as administer progress monitoring to examine the response to interventions a student is receiving through tiered instruction. Acadience Reading is a standardized tool and measures foundational early literacy skills that are response to interventions (Acadience Reading, 2019). The Acadience Reading benchmark assessment tool is recognized as a necessary MTSS data analysis tool due to its Outcomes-Driven Model. In an Outcomes-Driven-Model, educators can identify the need for support, validate the need for support through the available data, cycle through RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 14 planning, implementing and evaluating the interventions and then review outcomes (Acadience Reading, 2019). In order to use Acadience Reading data appropriately and effectively to support individual students, it is important that educators have a clear understanding of the conceptual and empirical foundations of the decision-making utility of Acadience Reading benchmark goals (Kaminski et. al., 2019). When a data team meets to discuss the performance of a student or group of students, there are specific indicators that should be analyzed. Acadience Reading scores are aligned to work with identifying the appropriate tier of instruction that would benefit the student. The official Acadience Reading benchmark goals and cut points for risk are empirically derived, criterion-referenced scores (Kaminski et. al., 2019). The scores are broken down by a set benchmark for students to achieve at certain grade levels. When students are above benchmark, then they are to be placed in Tier 1. Those who are at or slightly below benchmark will be placed in Tier 2 instruction receiving intervention supports. Those students who fall significantly below benchmark are in need of intensive intervention supports at the Tier 3 level. While the benchmark assessment tool is a great indicator of student success with the foundational reading skills, it is highly recommended that teachers use the progress monitoring tools to continually assess the progress students are making as a response to the interventions in place. Teachers should let the data drive their instructional decisions and planning, as well as to assist with setting attainable goals that are meaningful and important in aiding their growth (Kaminski et. al., 2019). RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 15 Progress Monitoring Another critical component to data analysis is progress monitoring. After screening identifies students who require targeted or intensive support, diagnostic assessments are used to select interventions, and progress monitoring plans are used to assess whether students are making adequate growth (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Progress monitoring can occur at every tier and results are analyzed by the team members to determine movement between tiers for students who are performing above the targeted benchmark. Progress monitoring needs to occur more frequently than screening because the data is used to make instructional decisions that cannot wait until the next benchmark period (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Tools for progress monitoring can be formative assessments aligned to the skills taught in Tier 1, a component of the universal screening tools used for the benchmark testing, and/or embedded tools within an evidence-based intervention program. Effective progress monitoring is focused on specific skills that the students show a deficit with their benchmark screening. Progress monitoring is less intensive, less time consuming and allows assessments to be conducted more frequently (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). The best method to collecting progress monitoring data is performed by the teacher who is providing the intervention, potentially the classroom teacher, reading specialist or other professional supporting the student. Data is recorded within a data management system where progress graphs can be generated to determine the student’s rate of improvement per skill assessed. The progress monitoring data is used to determine the steps along the way of a student acquiring and expanding their skill set. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 16 The data tell us whether the student is making adequate progress with the current support (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). When there is progress made, changes can be determined by the MTSS team to provide better and more aligned supports for the student. Data Analysis MTSS is strongly dependent upon data collection and analysis as a foundation for all implementation and decision-making efforts (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Once data has been collected in the various types of methods, through benchmark screening, progress monitoring, formative or summative assessments, MTSS teams can collaborate to plan the most appropriate action. Within a MTTS framework, there could potentially be a few different levels of data-analysis among team members. One method is at the student level, where a teacher or team would analyze an individual student’s profile of data to determine their strengths and weakness to develop a plan aligned to their specific needs. Another level of data-teaming could come at a class or grade level approach. In this model, a team of teachers, reading specialists, and administrators would collaborate and discuss the implications of data based upon the entire class or grade level. This type of data analysis would be more in alignment with looking at core instructional strengths, weakness, and performances of students as a whole group. The final method of data analysis within the MTSS framework would be to look at data from a more global perspective, or from a building-wide or district-wide lens. This approach would determine the effectiveness of core programming, interventions and aligned curriculum and instruction. Teachers and teams collecting data need to be efficient with data collection so as not to interrupt instruction unnecessarily, and it should RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 17 be collected to change instruction, not just to be collected (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Another important note is with any data collected, teachers need to understand how to interpret it beyond the numbers to dig deeper into the root cause to make determinations that will impact a student’s plan of action. Within an integrated MTSS model, data are collected, analyzed, summarized, and utilized for five main purposes: (1) assessing fidelity of implementation (i.e., Are we doing what we said we’d do?); (2) screening (i.e., Who needs additional support?); (3) diagnostic assessment (i.e., Are the supports changing student trajectories in a positive direction?); and (5) general outcomes measurement (i.e., Are students doing better overall?) (McIntosh, Reinke, & Herman, 2009; Torgesen, 2006; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016, p. 39). Foundational Components of Reading The overarching goal in any primary reading program is to ensure that all learners acquire the literacy skills needed to be able to read independently, at the appropriate rate, and with comprehension (Bulat et. al., 2017). There are five identified components of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Phonemic awareness is not the same as phonics, but it is defined as the ability to hear sounds and identify individual sounds, or phonemes. This occurs prior to being able to read. Phonemic awareness allows beginning readers to know and hear sounds before they are able to read words in print. Phonics is defined as correlating sounds of letters or groups of letters in the alphabet. Phonics instruction should be taught in an explicit manner where students are able to identify a letter and correlate a sound. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 18 The first step to learning how to read is through phonics, then it expands into phonemic awareness, then to fluency. Fluency is the art of being able to put all of the sounds together to make a word and seamlessly piece it together to recognize words in a sentence structure for meaning. Vocabulary is understanding the meaning of the word within the context it is used. Comprehension is understanding the meaning of the story, analyzing it and make meaning. Although some learners can acquire foundational reading skills with less formal and implicit instruction, many learners require explicit, systematic instruction and practice with these foundational skills (Bulat et. al., 2017). The focus of this research is based upon the impact of enhancing core reading instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3 by the implementation of interventions used during MTSS, or What I Need (WIN) time. Core reading instruction is a critical element to building a successful foundation for literary success in students. A core program builds upon the foundation started in prekindergarten through the primary grade levels. There have been many studies conducted to research the best approach to core reading programs, supplemental resources, as well as if too much phonics or phonemic awareness can hinder the academic growth of students in becoming stronger readers. Duke and Mesmer (2018-2019) examined the inadequacies of teachers spending too little time on phonics instruction. With the English language having so many complexities between their letters and sounds, they claim that English word reading requires a lot more effort to teach and learn than many other languages (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). While there is research to support both sides of the argument, typical recommendations range from 30-60 minutes per day, on average in RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 19 a K-2 instructional setting, to be spent on various instructional methods infusing phonics, phonemic awareness, and vocabulary (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). As students progress through their reading instruction between kindergarten and second grade, they are working toward set benchmarks identified by the state standards and district curriculum to reach certain phases in their language development. By the second grade, a strong foundation should be in place to recognize all letters by their sound, blending sounds together, becoming fluent in their reading, as well as have an increasing sense of fluency. Through this instructional framework, students should be exposed to a print-rich environment where they are able to interact and engage with the print to acquire the alphabetic principles, concepts of the words, and other concepts of print (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). While there is much emphasis in the early literacy years on students identifying their letters and sounds, at times, there is little transfer into understanding and connecting those skills to the print words. Duke and Mesmer did note that children who do know their letter names early are more likely to experience improved literacy achievement in later years (2018-2019). Literacy is a foundational skill developed from the bottom up. Children learn to read out-loud at first by learning grapheme and phoneme correspondences. This requires explicit instruction, repetition, and correction (Krashen, 2002). In 2000, the National Reading Panel claimed that phonics-based classes outperformed those who were integrated into whole language classes. The discrepancies exist through research between the push for stronger phonics-based instruction and whole-language instruction. In 1966, RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 20 Clymer argued that basal series did not work very well, stating an over-teaching of phonics at the early grades. Phonics instruction should aim to teach only the most important and regular of letter-to-sound relationships…once the basic relationships have been taught, the best way to get children to refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences is through repeated opportunities to read. If this position is correct, then much phonics instruction is overly subtle and probably unproductive (Becoming a Nation of Readers, 1985, p. 38). As the federal government pointed out, students should be able to read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. This leaves second grade in a vulnerable position to ensure students have acquired their foundational skills and are able to apply the skills to practice. This application has extended from phonics and phonemic awareness into having more emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension in the second grade (Duke & Block, 2012). A disturbing study by Donaldson (2011) found that out of 325 K-3 classrooms observed over a 3-year period, fewer than 63 percent of teachers taught vocabulary, and that vocabulary instruction consisted of less than 5 percent, on average, of a typical teacher’s literacy instruction. To better improve the level of reading instruction in the primary grades, teachers must look at all components of instruction in building a student’s foundation for reading. This foundation will only strengthen the skills that will transfer into other content areas. Promoting comprehension in earlier primary level classrooms will allow for students to broaden their skill-base and expose students to richer literacy. Jack Jennings and Diane Rentner, authors of a report written RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 21 for the Center on Education Policy, summarized that the mandate of No Child Left Behind resulted in teachers spending more time on skill reinforcement in reading and math instruction. Unfortunately, this largely took the place of content-area instruction (Duke & Block, 2012). In 2014, the shift to the PA Core Standards broadened the scope of comprehension expectations into the primary levels by setting standards for informational text expectations outside of the English Language Arts classroom to include subjects such as science and social studies. For many years, these content areas were taught in silos, without any cross-reference for skills attained and transferred into reading more complex texts in social studies. The text presented in social studies and science expose students to a different style of reading and text-types, where they are expected to understand how to navigate through graphs, richer vocabulary, diagrams, maps and tables. Neglecting informational text in the primary grades has constituted a missed opportunity to not only build social studies and science knowledge through text, but also to build knowledge of a variety of text features (Duke & Block, 2012). The National Reading Panel suggested many opportunities for change in how primary grades teach reading (2000). Phonological awareness is beneficial to all types of learners and backgrounds. This skill is most effective when paired with phonics instruction (Duke & Block, 2012). It is recommended that through the instruction of phonics and phonological-awareness, there would be more attainment of the skills if there is modeling to show students how to decode words rather than merely blending and expecting students to make the connection to decoding on their own (Duke & Block, 2012). Another strong point suggested by the National Reading Panel is to deliberately RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 22 teach vocabulary in the primary grades (2000). Brabham and Brown (2002) determined that when readers interact with students through read-aloud strategies and encourage discussion of vocabulary terms, students demonstrate a higher vocabulary knowledge. Defining the core reading components and strategically determining the appropriate framework, resources and sequence in which they are taught will allow teachers to strengthen their core reading instruction in the primary grades. Gaining an understanding of what research says works, and how that can translate into the classroom, is part of the process to develop a stronger core reading approach in Tier 1 instruction. Understanding this piece will only help to develop and align the resources and interventions to support the student acquisition of core reading skills through the primary grades. Teachers and school leaders need to determine what approach will be most effective in gaining long-term results for students to improve reading skills. Aiming to target improvements over a short-period of time can lead instruction to focus on the reading skills and foundations that can be assessed easily and with measurable results. While this will show improvements, the long-term impact of merely emphasizing foundational skills through phonics and phonemic awareness comes at the expense of developing the comprehension, vocabulary, and conceptual knowledge (Duke & Block, 2012). Skill development is not only needed at the student level, but also at the teacher development level. For more than a decade, researchers have argued that to be effective, early reading teachers need a relatively high level of knowledge about “the linguistic foundations” of early reading (Moats, 2009; Carlisle et. al., 2011). Districts need to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 23 ensure that teachers in the primary grade levels are educated on the components of reading, relevant instructional practices that support building the foundational skills, and to understand the impact of their instructional planning and delivery. The preparation for teachers and the level of understanding of core reading instruction will help to identify effective teaching strategies, resources and tools in core reading instruction, as well as in Tier 2 and 3 interventions. Instructional Approaches to Early Literacy Foomer and Al Ofaiba (2009) state that when students fall behind in developing early literacy skills, literacy intervention in kindergarten through grade 2 can reduce the number of students failing to reach grade-level benchmarks. It may seem to be an overwhelming task to learn thousands of sound sequences that make up words and to develop an unconscious awareness of all of the complexities of oral language. Yet, every child, all over the world, at about the same points in time, develops language with no apparent instruction. Many scientists argue that our brains are “hardwired” to develop language, and that is a very good thing (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018, p. 36). While children’s brains may be hardwired to learn a new language, it will take instructional supports to strengthen those skills for the language to become fluent over time. Despite the tangible method of teaching reading, research supports that skills targeted by effective early literacy interventions including explicit instruction on phonological awareness, letter/sound correspondence, links from letters to sounds, decoding, and word building. Additionally, students must practice reading for accuracy, RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 24 fluency and comprehension (Foorman et al., 2016; Foorman et. al,. 2017). Phonemes are very important in the education of young readers and writers, in fact, the process of becoming literate has added value in that it sharpens children’s listening and speaking powers (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018). Effective instructional practices are even more important than the resources used. Teachers need to understand the complexities of implicit and explicit instruction when teaching foundation reading skills to younger students. Much research has shown that no aspect of literacy education is unimportant, and students that are immersed in a responsive literacy classroom are more successful (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018). Pinnell questions in her work with the Responsive Classroom, that a “quiet classroom is a good classroom,” and argues instead, for intentional instructional decisions that foster discussion and develop a literate environment in the classroom (2018). The most powerful way to expand oral language in every area of the curriculum is to engage children in text-based talk around a work of children’s literature (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018). There are many instructional strategies which support and promote reading in the early grades. Some of the practices researched through the Responsive Literacy Comprehensive Framework (2018) suggested interactive read-aloud, shared reading, guided reading, writing workshops, phonics and word study. Pinnell stated in 2018, if we have to identify one foundation for literacy learning, it must be oral language. A welldesigned literacy framework positions students in active thinking, engaging conversations, and authentic reflections about texts that are purposefully chosen to meet the variety of needs and interest of students (Schaub & Scharer, 2018). In addition to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 25 understanding the processing involved in acquiring literacy, a teacher must possess a depth of knowledge about how children learn and ensure that the framework design implemented in the classroom is grounded in a strong learning theory (Scharer & Schaub, 2018). Allowing students to be engaged in the instruction through multiple texts, conversations, and collaboration with peers and teachers will only broaden their ability to grasp the concepts. Scaffolding instruction to the student’s abilities is one instructional strategy that should be visible in tiered instruction. Effective scaffolding encourages the participation of strategic behaviors in readers and writers (Scharer & Schaub, 2018). Scaffolding allows the learner to have supports available, but as they become more comfortable with the task, the supports are slowly pulled away where the learner can work on a task independently with success. Being a responsive teacher means knowing the learners and their needs. This style of teaching is crucial to the success of RtI in tiered instruction. Responsive teachers notice student strengths and competencies and shift teaching to the student’s level of learning, rather than the student trying to reach the level of the teaching (Scharer & Schaub, 2018). Tiered instruction is based upon meeting the students where they are. In most cases, it would require small group instruction within a large group classroom in Tier 1. In this environment, independent learning is encouraged. Managing the independent work of students can be difficult when there are not additional supports available to assist or monitor. The Responsive Classroom Comprehensive Framework (2018) suggests that routines are established, the content is right for the students in the group and that students RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 26 are able to self-regulate their behavior during the independent work. The process of establishing routines for student-led small-group or independent work can be introduced in a scaffolded approach where basic tasks are assigned to set the guidelines for learning to be effective. Once students are able to understand their expectations, the level of the work within these smaller groups can be adjusted and the students can be challenged according to their specific needs as outlined by performance data. Being able to manage a classroom with multiple learning methods occurring at the same time, will only enable teachers to provide the appropriate supports to students during their WIN time at the multiple levels of need. In a second grade classroom, students should be transitioning into a more fluent level of reading. With this shift, different instructional practices can be introduced to ensure that students are exposed to multiple types of rich texts, broader vocabulary activities, writing workshops and opportunities to share their thinking. As second grade continues to hone the skill of reading, emphasis should still be placed upon word building. Word study is aimed to developing children’s spelling, vocabulary, and phonicword recognition knowledge (as well as phonological awareness) through handson learning in ways that build on what students already know and foster word consciousness - namely, appreciation and interest in word learning (Ganske, 2014; Scharer, 2018, p. 283). Providing multiple opportunities for students to interact and engage with letters, words and sounds is another great instructional approach during WIN time. Learning about how RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 27 words work makes an important contribution to students as both readers and writers (Schaub, 2018). Core and Supplemental Reading Programs There are many purchased programming options for schools to choose to implement as part of their reading instruction. The selection process of such tools and resources come with much debate by many researchers. What is better, basal-series, whole-language, supplemental resources or a combination of all? A strong recommendation is to ensure that the materials used are research-based and evidencebased to support reading achievement and growth. An example of a core reading series is McGraw Hill’s Wonders Reading which is a systematic language arts curriculum that offers whole group reading, small group differentiated instruction, and whole group language arts (Morin et. al,, 2013). Wonders is not presented as a scripted curriculum, but rather as a framework to implement sound reading instructional practices and skills to students. The series offers the traditional foundational reading instructional components of phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, spelling, comprehension, vocabulary, and writing. It also presents the learning materials in a way where teachers can expose students to a variety of core, supplemental, independent, web-based and cultural responsive material (Morin et. al,, 2013). A benefit from implementing a basal series approach to early literacy instruction is the packaged resources and materials that are vetted, broken down by concepts and topics and presented in a structured sequence to ensure reading success across each grade level. Within Wonders, there are opportunities for differentiation in whole and small group settings. The Systems of Language table RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 28 from page 43 of Stephen Kucer’s (2009) the “Dimension of Literacy," is used to describe the Wonders Reading Program (Morin et. al., 2013). The Reading Wonders program is based upon the Common Core State Standards Figure 2 Dimensions of literacy. From Kucer, S. B., 2009 in English Language Arts where all of the language arts components are aligned with each other to support growth in student learning; it is research-based, addresses the five components of reading instruction and provides differentiated instruction (Morin, et al. , 2013). Reading Wonders is the approved reading series of Mars Area School District, located in Western Pennsylvania, which is the site for this action research study. In addition to the core reading series of Mars Area School District has adopted, Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum has been implemented since January 2019. Literacy Resources Inc. claims that each level of the Heggerty curriculum provides thirtyfive weeks of daily lessons, focusing on eight phonemic awareness skills, along with two additional activities to develop Letter and Sound recognition, and Language Awareness RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 29 (2019). The lessons are designed to deliver Tier 1 phonemic awareness instruction in a whole group setting and only take 10–12 minutes. For students in need of extra support, portions of lessons could be used in a small group and serve as a “second dose” of phonemic awareness instruction. Heggerty lessons are easy to integrate into core classroom instruction at Tier 1 by taking 10-15 minutes of explicit instruction and direction dedicated to phonemic awareness. Instruction in phonemic awareness, when connected to word decoding and spelling instruction, is a key component to preventing reading deficiency in children who come to school without the required skill sets (Moats, 2012). Phonemic awareness instruction helped children of all levels improve their reading, including normally developing readers, children at risk for future reading problems, disabled readers, preschoolers, kindergartners, 1st graders, children in 2nd through 6th grades (most of whom were disabled readers), children across various SES levels, and children learning to read in English as well as other languages (National Reading Panel, 2012, pp. 2-5). Phonemic awareness is the understanding that spoken words are made up of individual sounds, which are called phonemes. A child who is phonemically aware is able to isolate sounds, manipulate the sounds, and blend and segment sounds into spoken and written words. Phonemic awareness is an auditory training process (Heggerty, 2019). The daily lessons focus on the sounds students hear in words only, not the letters in print. In a phonemic awareness lesson there is an emphasis on the phonemes (sounds), where it focuses on spoken language with auditory activities. Students work with manipulating RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 30 sounds, as well as sounds heard in a word. In a phonics lesson, the main focus is on the graphemes, or letter, and it deals with written language and print. Student activities are both auditory and visual and student activities include reading and writing letters according to their sounds, spelling patterns, and phonological structure (Heggerty, 2019). Early Literacy Instructional Materials The logical place to start determining the evidence base for interventions is having clear criteria for just what is evidence-based (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). McIntosh and Goodman categorized three levels of academic practices, 1. Researchbased practices, 2. Evidence-based practices and, 3. Unsupported practices (2016). Research-based practices have not been evaluated through rigorous research, but they are designed based upon research indicating that they are likely to work (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Evidence-based practices have shown in multiple research studies to improve student outcomes (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016), therefore considered to be a good indicator of a tried and tested tool. Unsupported practices should be avoided in classroom instruction because there is evidence to prove that they are ineffective and even harmful to students (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Determining which instructional tools are the best fit for effective and explicit classroom instruction is a crucial step in assuring students will find success in their learning. Research and classroom data is showing that there is an increasing need to provide a more rigorous review and selection process when determining which instructional materials would be a good fit for curriculum and instruction. Recently, the importance of instructional materials has been overlooked, and the pedagogical connection between lesson objectives RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 31 and instructional materials is rarely coherent (Foorman et. al., 2004; Foorman et. al., 2017). Specifically within the grade span of K-2, there should be a focus to support reading foundational skills to develop competent readers and build student capacity to comprehend a range of text types (Foorman et. al., 2017). As with many reviews and decisions, developing a rubric to assess the value of multiple components and their perceived effectiveness is one method to make a well thought-out decision. The rubric created by the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Southeast provides a way to evaluate reading/language arts instructional materials (including core reading programs and reading intervention programs) with the scientific research on reading instruction (Foorman et. al., 2017). Taking an in-depth look at instructional design, content and pedagogy are three elements of design that support solid reading instructional materials. The rubric can be used as a tool to assist decision-makers through the purchase process, identifying gaps in existing materials, and to determine the effectiveness of the tools. The REL Southeast tool identifies the effectiveness of K-2 foundational reading skills, print concepts, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, reading comprehension for both literary and informational text, writing development, speaking and listening, and language development. To ensure inter-rater reliability, it is suggested that 2-3 reviewers are assigned and that Krippendorff’s alpha be used to calculate the inter-rater reliability for the rubric. In order to be considered reliable, it suggests that reviewers reach a Kalpha greater than or equal to .80 to be considered reliable (Foorman et. al., 2017). While this particular tool has yet to be utilized within the District, it would be something to consider when determining which resources and materials are most RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 32 effective based upon the appropriate alignment to the curriculum and instructional practices. Reading Instruction in an Elementary Classroom Deficits in reading achievement are associated with a host of negative outcomes, including below grade-level performance across the curriculum, grade retention, and failure to graduate (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). The overall purpose of MTSS (under the academic umbrella) is to provide students with more specific instructional support that meet his/her identified needs. Those needs could be either enrichment, remediation, or just a bit more emphasis on core instruction. The most efficient way to increase the intensity of instruction for struggling readers is to provide instruction in small groups (Torgesen, 2006). The three tiered model allows students to be broken down into smaller, intently focused groups based upon their ability level and area of need. The tiered instruction can happen in multiple formats, but most often it is based upon the skill area aligned with the similar level of needs for each student within the small group. Tiered instruction is a well-designed framework to embed differentiated instruction. Using assessment data to determine which tier students should be placed, as well as what areas are defined as targeted instructional support areas, groups should remain fluid for all students throughout the year. Within a Tier 1 group, there should be a variety of instructional practices taking place: teacher-led small group, independent work, and small group based upon skills. As an example, during independent work, students who are weak in vocabulary can practice their skills with a partner or in a small student-led group, while other students are assigned a different task (National Reading RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 33 Panel, 2000). All students should receive the core reading instruction, which is also known as Tier 1. Tier 1 instruction is defined as the core, where at least 80% of students would be placed. Classroom teachers should provide differentiated instruction in small groups during the reading block designed to target skill deficiencies. However, it is difficult to provide enough time for this type of instruction to meet the needs of the students that are most at-risk (Torgesen, 2006). Those students who are not meeting benchmark through their screening measures would be identified as needing additional supports would then be placed in Tier 2. Tier 2 instruction applies to only those at risk in key areas, and the lines between Tier 1 and 2 can become blurry unless data-driven instruction clarifies the exact level of needs for the students (National Reading Panel, 2000). Multi-tiered interventions are most effective when they consist of Tier 1 reading instruction and Tier 2 interventions that are aligned with the scope and sequence of Tier 1 instruction (Foorman, Herrera & Dombek, 2018). Tier 2 typically has 15% of the student population per grade level receiving intervention supports. Tier 2 instruction should take place in small groups, ranging from three to four students, using curricula that addresses the homogeneous needs of the students such as comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and/or vocabulary (National Reading Panel, 2000). Tier 2 instruction would occur during the established WIN time, which is in addition to the core reading instruction, or 30 minutes beyond the 90-minute core reading instruction. In this model, it is crucial that instruction is well-coordinated with the instruction they are receiving in the core classroom to not impose any more confusion to an already struggling student (Torgesen, 2006). In order to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 34 determine if a student is making growth, in 2000, the National Reading Panel suggested that students be assessed, or progress monitored, at least monthly. If growth is shown over a series of assessments, a student in Tier 2 can be reassigned to Tier 1; or if the student is showing regression, they could be assigned to Tier 3. Students with the most significant needs, and who have shown performance far below benchmark are eligible for Tier 3 instruction. Tier 3 provides the most intensive level of support, using research-based and evidence-based intervention programs with fidelity. Student progress is monitored frequently to determine the rate of improvement for the child, and requires explicit instruction to support the child’s deficit in reading instruction. Students at Tier 3 should have intensive interventions provided to them daily to promote the development of the various components of reading proficiency (National Reading Panel, 2000). In addition to the tiered levels of instruction, and using the proper data to make decisions regarding student placement within the tiers, the selection of intervention materials and resources is of the utmost importance. Tiered instruction is guided explicitly from data. Instruction is differentiated based upon the student needs and should be concentrated on a focused, or targeted set of reading skills (National Reading Panel, 2000). Struggling readers cannot be subjected to too many instructional objectives. This makes it more difficult to learn the necessary skills for reading proficiency (Blumsack, 1996; Foorman et al., 1998; Gillon, 2000; IES Practical Guide, 2009). Despite the intervention level, all interventions should be based upon what the data shows the students actually need. Not all students who have difficulty reading are weak in phonics or decoding, they may be struggling with RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 35 their vocabulary or comprehension. Understanding what the data shows and knowing how the students respond to the interventions in place will allow a teacher to make the necessary adjustments to provide targeted support. If a student is receiving intervention support multiple times a week, several sessions could be focused on phonemic awareness and decoding in depth, but the other days could focus on comprehension and vocabulary (National Reading Panel, 2000). While MTSS provides a framework for schools to follow, it is definitely not a one-sized fits all boxed program. It takes time to collect pertinent data, analyze and make decisions based upon the needs of every student. It also requires teachers to have a solid understanding of the various components of reading and instruction with reading. Another key component to the smaller group sizes in Tier 2 and 3 instruction is the direct feedback teachers can provide to students. Instructional strategies and practices play a huge role in ensuring students are exposed to well designed lessons. Understanding the needs, finding interventions that align and support those needs, and delivering them with fidelity will improve the opportunities for students to find success and grow. Another key component is teaching to mastery. Students must demonstrate skill mastery before moving to the next skill or lesson (National Reading Panel, 2000). Keeping record of student progress is critical to knowing the smallest gains to largest gains over time. Student performance on different reading tasks must be monitored and recorded by the teachers, for example; a teacher could record the exact words a student practices while reading, the student’s word reading accuracy, and the number of attempts it takes for students to practice a word before reading it with accuracy (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995). Early reading provides critical RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 36 foundational skills; such skills and strategies need to be proficient before students enter the upper elementary grades (National Reading Panel, 2000). Regardless of the Tier level, reading instruction should focus on building and sustaining the core components of reading. Instruction should be explicit and systematic to produce positive effects in all areas of reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). Of the five components of reading instruction, phonemic awareness is a potential predictor of future success in reading and a critical foundational skill for becoming a reader (United States Department of Education, 2009). Several reports claim that systematic and explicit instruction in the area of decoding produces growth among students receiving targeted instruction in this area (National Reading Panel, 2000). Complex comprehension instruction appears to be glanced over in the grade 1-2 span, and should be embedded into core instruction and interventions by promoting more oral reading and comprehension strategies using Know-Want to Know-Learned (K-W-L), summarization and retelling (Vaughn et al., 2006). When students practice reading fluently, on a daily basis, studies show that there is improvement with their word reading accuracy (National Reading Panel, 2000). Finally, vocabulary skill work is something that does not become a prevalent part of reading instruction and skill acquisition until the upper elementary grades, which also leads into less significant growth in the comprehension area for students when reading non-fiction texts in other subject areas such as Social Studies and Science. The goal of interventions should always be to accelerate reading development (Torgesen, 2006). Research indicates that the 3-tier integrated model produces a larger gain in literacy skills that the reading-only model (Stewart et. al., 2007). RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 37 Delivery of Interventions When designing a MTSS framework, it will take the effort of everyone in the school. The structure itself is complex in terms of logistical planning to align core reading instruction, tiered reading instruction and the ability to pull-out intervention groups to maximize a dedicated time for students to receive proper instructional support. The core instruction is taught by the classroom teacher in a recommended 90-minute uninterrupted reading block. Tiered instruction can occur in multiple, creative ways, depending on the staffing availability, but effective interventions require skillful teaching (Torgesen, 2006). Reading specialists, paraprofessionals and classroom teachers all play an integral role in maintaining the flow of instruction on a daily basis. The building principal plays a role in the support system to allow for common-planning time to occur between teachers and reading specialists. The collaboration time is important to review, analyze and discuss data, as well as to plan instructional lessons and strategies that are in alignment with the students’ needs. While programs will run despite the level of preparation each teacher has, it is known that in the absence of well-trained and experienced interventionists, experienced teachers or qualified para-professionals, less effective interventions could be delivered (Torgesen, 2006). In the event that you have an inexperienced staff, Torgeson suggests that a more scripted intervention program be used to ensure the validity of the program (2006). If we have data showing that practices are implemented to criteria, we can better assess other reasons for inadequate response (e.g., insufficient intensity, poor match to student need) and change our plans accordingly. Without fidelity data, RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 38 we can not know whether our plan even has the potential to help support the student to be successful or what aspects we need to change to make it better (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016, p. 39). Program fidelity should be monitored frequently by an administrator or person responsible for the academic success of students within the MTSS framework. Fidelity of Implementation Fidelity of implementation refers to instructional delivery specifically designed and intended to be taught. This requires teachers to provide explicit instruction and accurate progress monitoring according to the prescribed research-based method (Bianco, 2009). Fidelity checks will allow all to see what tools and resources are being used, in what manner, and then to be analyzed as a determining factor if there is growth or regression shown amongst students. Even the very best research-based programs are only as good as the level of fidelity in their implementation with children (Torgesen, 2006). With interventions, there are several approaches. The fidelity-focused and the structured adaptive approaches to program implementation make different assumptions and different demands on the practitioners implementing any given program (Quinn & Kim, 2017). When teachers are using the program with fidelity, they are following step by step instructions from how to deliver the lessons to how long the lessons should last. By following these programs with fidelity, it is more likely that the intervention will work as prescribed. Without this, the system becomes a hollow shell that produces meaningless outcomes (Bianco, 2009). This causes teachers to lose their creativity and ability to work directly in alignment with the student needs. This approach lends itself to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 39 the “control” approach to instructional management in which the teacher’s instructional tasks are predetermined, well defined, and the school administrator’s role ensures that teachers execute those tasks (Quinn & Kim, 2017). The control approach takes away the need to collaborate and plan with other teachers since that level of the work has been completed prior to implementation. In contrast, teachers under the structured adaptive approach to program implementation must be able to recognize what is working and what is not working about an intervention (Quinn & Kim, 2017). With this model, teachers take the ownership and autonomy of instructional decision-making and planning into their own hands. This is where teacher collaboration and communication is crucial to ensure that the interventions and instructional strategies are properly aligned to the skills and level of the students’ ability. While both systems have pros and cons, the most effective approach is left up to the district’s vision of MTSS, as well as the ability level of the staff who would be engaging in tier instruction. Another key factor would be the results of the student progress and response to the interventions in place. Scaffolding these two styles of teaching together is one way schools can meet in the middle. Rather than choosing between the fidelity-focused and adaptive approach, scaffolding enables teachers to see how the programs are designed to work together and then execute them with more confidence (Quinn & Kim, 2017). Another rationale for ensuring fidelity of implementation is that it paves the way for a more valid determination of the existence of a disability, rather than a student in need of additional instruction in reading foundational skills (Bianco, 2009). RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 40 Conclusion MTSS is a complex framework that specifically focuses on improving student achievement. Through a variety of research-based and evidence-based resources and tools, teachers and specialists are able to identify, plan, and focus on what students need to make instructional gains over time. Each component of the MTSS process is crucial to ensuring student growth. Starting with a strong universal screening tool to determine the appropriate level of ability a student has with foundational reading skills, analyzing the data to determine what a student needs and aligning a research-based intervention or evidence-based instruction to provide them what they need are all critical components toward MTSS success. Most curricular adjustments should be focused on strengthening the core and having a solid Tier 1 instructional program that will provide a stable foundation for students to springboard their reading achievement. Resources and materials must be consistent and support evidence-based success as a foundational concept, as well as fidelity through a data-analysis process. These programatic adjustments would be the crucial component for informed decision making with students who need additional supports through Tier 2 and 3. Through all of these components, there also needs to be a practical approach to professional development for all teachers so that they understand the framework as a decision-making process to support students. Reading has many facets that require explicit instruction in the foundational skills for students to become fluent readers. Not all students learn at the same level, therefore, understanding each component of building foundational reading skills and having the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction ability to align resources based upon where the student’s needs are will only promote growth and success through explicit instruction and data analysis. 41 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 42 CHAPTER III Methodology Introduction In the District’s second year of MTSS implementation, the framework has experienced uncertainties among the teaching staff. After the first year of implementation, the students did not appear to make the gains that the District expected to see with the level of intervention time and intensive support provided to students at each tier. The question remained as to how WIN time could be beneficial and successful for all students. Typically, students in the second grade are exposed to critical foundational reading skills that have been building since pre-kindergarten. Students are expected to be comprehending text with fluency. Phonics and phonemic awareness skills should be developed and those skills should be providing the necessary background to continually expand and apply their language acquisition skills. For some students, this is not the case. The purpose of this research study is to determine the resources, interventions, assessments and instruction in place and its impact on enhancing the core instruction that promotes and supports student growth. The research plan considered all aspects of a second grade classroom during WIN time at Tier 1, 2 and 3 levels of intervention. The plan determined if there was fidelity with the tools used during tiered instructional times, and if they were aligned to the level of student need as determined by the available data. The research also showed how many students were demonstrating movement between tiers due to the interventions in place. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 43 To fully understand the impact of the newly implemented MTSS framework relative to any growth, academic reading data was collected using two years worth of universal screening results from 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. In this research model, there are two different cohorts of students, therefore eliminating the focus of specific student academic achievement and shifting the emphasis of this study to the instructional practices and resources in place. In addition to the two years worth of academic data, teachers anonymously shared feedback through an online survey that allowed the opportunity to respond based upon their level of experience and expertise as a second grade teacher. The data received from the survey provided a quantitative look at the model in place along with the successes, strengths and weaknesses of what the district implemented. Purpose The purpose of the research study was to determine if the enhanced core reading instructional strategies used in second grade made an impact on student achievement and subsequent movement between MTSS Tiers 1, 2 and 3. Based upon the data available through benchmark assessment tools administered between 2018-2020, an anonymous second grade teacher questionnaire, and randomly conducted fidelity walkthrough observations of WIN time, the action research identified trends shown to support student growth. The MTSS framework was newly implemented in the elementary school at the start of the 2018-2019 school year. Teachers in the elementary setting were familiar with RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 44 a traditional approach to teaching in a self-contained setting, responsible for all core content areas. Due in part to the Special Education audit of 2017, the district received recommendations to provide tiered instruction to all students. Prior to the audit report, the district was not providing adequate and appropriate levels of instructional interventions to students before being recommended to an evaluation for Special Education. The teaching of core content without intervention support was an engrained practice for many years in the District. The audit action plan called for a MTSS framework to be developed in the District’s K-6 buildings. The approach was to implement MTSS in K-6 classrooms with reading, followed in year two with math and behavioral interventions. A budget was set at $65,000 dedicated to purchasing reading intervention programs and resources for K-6 schools. Two reading specialists were already in place, but focused mainly on providing Title 1-Like services to students in grades 2-4. Title I-Like is defined as a teacher who performs similar duties to Title I funded teachers, but their position is not financially supported through Title 1 funding, nor do they retain records for Title 1 Federal requirements. The Title I-Like teachers eliminated the “reading lab” approach established several years ago, and became Tier 2 and 3 intervention specialists servicing the needs of all students whose benchmark assessment scores, and other pertinent data, suggested they receive more intensive intervention support. Resources and materials were purchased to support intensive interventions for Tier 2 and 3. Leveled Literacy Interventions (LLI) and Rave-O were added as supplemental research-based reading interventions due to a lack of materials available to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 45 provide students with fluency and comprehension support. LLI is only used in Tier 2 or 3 in a small-group setting, delivered by the reading specialist to students demonstrating difficulty with reading and writing. The LLI program is leveled and systematically scripted for fidelity and more explicit instructional interventions to move students toward success. LLI also has an embedded progress monitoring component that enables data to be recorded based upon the student’s response to the interventions over time (Heineman, Fountas & Pinnell, 2020). Rave-O is also presented in a small-group setting by the Tier 2 and 3 Reading Specialist, but focuses more on an evidence-based literacy interventions for students to take a deeper dive into text through understanding and achievement (Voyager Sopris, 2020). As part of the MTSS process, a critical element to determining proper student placement is administering a universal screening tool. In this district, over the two-year period of time data was collected and analyzed, two different screening tools were used. AIMSweb 1.0 was administered to K-4 grades in 2018-2019, and Acadience Reading was administered in K-2 grades in 2019-2020. Both assessments have similar reading components and are administered in the same one-on-one scripted format. Once data is officially collected and recorded, teachers assigned to data-teams meet to analyze and make instructional-based decisions. The data-team in this elementary school has a two prong purpose. One team is composed of all teachers involved in a grade level cluster with their assigned reading specialist. The cluster grouping was based upon 3-4 teachers within the same grade level RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 46 with like-schedules. The purpose of the cluster is to allow for a small grouping of teachers to work closely together to review and analyze student data within their homerooms and also to plan for instruction that may include students working in fluid groups with other teachers within that particular cluster. The second data-team has a building focus to data and is composed of the building principal, school psychologist, and any teacher assigned to the team. A data meeting structure was created and led by the reading specialists on an eleven-day rotation schedule to discuss progress of all students in each tier. The structure slowly evolved throughout the first year of implementation with many hurdles and barriers in place. Such barriers included, time to plan, time to meet, minimal professional development and lack of understanding of analyzing data to make instructional decisions. A Google “Data Wall” was created internally for the convenience of sharing data amongst teachers, reading specialists, the building principal and school psychologists on a collaborative platform that allowed for real-time data to be added and reviewed. Over the two year time frame, the district provided professional development opportunities to understand the concept of MTSS, which was met with some resistance from both teachers and administrators. As the first year concluded, it was evident that there were areas of improvement, which prompted a need and subsequently, the focus for the research study. With one year completed, it became a natural focus to make shifts to the framework, establish stronger policies and procedures, review the benchmark assessment tool’s effectiveness, as well as to identify if the interventions and model in RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 47 place were effective. In the second year of implementation, a district-wide MTSS handbook was created with the input of the district administrative team and supports from the local intermediate unit and tools gleaned from participating in a state MTSS training task force. Gains and movement between tiers were not clearly noted in ways that were anticipated areas of growth, and therefore prompted a greater interest in conducting an action research study to determine a deeper level of understanding of the framework, the data’s representation and the effectiveness of the instructional interventions in place. The development of the following research questions helped to streamline the approach to digging deeper. Q1: How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student response to the core instruction and interventions in place? The goal of this research question was to be able to determine how often students were moving between each tier. Whether students were experiencing a rise in academic performance based upon the interventions provided and moving out of Tier 2 into Tier 1. Also, it would determine the amount of students who received core instruction in Tier 1 and, over time, were not finding success with the foundational skills through differentiated instruction resulting in moving into Tier 2 throughout the course of the school year. The data represents all of the second grade students desegregated between Tier 1, 2 and 3 at the benchmark points of the year (September, January and May) for both 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. A comparison will be outlined for the different subgroups of second grade students dependent upon the year the data represents. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 48 Q2: Are the instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students? The goal of this research question is to identify the instructional interventions used during Tier 1, 2 and 3 and determine if they are perceived as effective based upon the students’ response through movement between tiers. A fidelity check of classroom instruction at the different tiered levels would define what was used during randomly selected visits to classrooms of second grade students, and also what interventions and/or teaching materials were used during the assigned WIN time. While this will represent a small sampling of data, it will show whether or not there was consistency with the type of tool, or instructional practice, used during a set intervention period focused on reading skill acquisition. Another factor with this question would be the type of tool and instructional delivery approach implemented to determine if it was directly aligned to the skill deficit demonstrated through the available data. Q3: What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to reading achievement? The third research question focuses on the perception of the MTSS structure through the lens of the teachers who were planning, analyzing data, and implementing instruction based upon what the students needed in Tier 1, 2 and 3. Data was collected using the anonymous survey presented in an online format to the twelve teachers who directly worked with second grade students. MTSS provides teachers and students with a layered approach to learning in reading, math and behavior. The framework provides RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 49 purposeful levels of interventions that are designed to support the needs of each student in three targeted groups. Tier 1 focuses on the core instruction of the defined content area. During Tier 1 instruction, the classroom teacher is responsible for a continuation and deeper emphasis on the skills taught during the core reading instructional time. Students in Tier 1 are performing at or above benchmark as per the universal screening tool, but may still present varied levels of ability and understanding of the concepts at hand. Within Tier 1, the instruction should be differentiated and presented in small fluid groups, where the teacher can work with one group of students while others are independently completing a task. In this study, the Tier 1 core instructional material is the Wonders 2014 reading series. Teachers present instruction almost verbatim to the scope and sequence defined by McGraw Hill and utilize all anthology texts, practice books and language components from the series without much deviation. In addition to the Wonders series, teachers also implement the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Supplemental program during the core instruction, as well as in some intervention periods. MTSS is based upon reliable data collected through a variety of sources, but most notably the progress reported via universal screening tools administered at three points in a single academic year. Two different tools were implemented over the two year period of time, due to District preference and a desired need to change programs based upon one product retiring in June 2019. AIMSweb and Acadience have parallel modes of assessments and categories, and the transition between the two was a matter of becoming familiar with the new tool. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 50 AIMSweb is s a benchmark and progress monitoring system based in direct, frequent and continuous student assessment. Oral reading fluency is a critical component of measuring a student’s ability to read as they are assessed for their accuracy and speed with leveled texts. Each student in this District was assessed individually by a teacher and timed for a one-minute period of cold reading passages (passages never read by the student). The test administrator marks a scoring sheet with the correct words read per minute and records the amount and types of errors made per passage. The other assessment component in AIMSweb is the Reading Maze, which is a comprehension assessment tool where the test administrator presents the student with a single reading passage where some words are replaced with a multiple-choice box that includes the correct word and two distractors. The students are expected to make a selection of the appropriate word choice that best fits the meaning of the sentence as they silently read the passage (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011). The assessment is conducted in a paper-pencil collection process, with each student independently assessed 1:1 by a teacher or reading specialist (who may not have been their own teacher, nor a teacher with which they were familiar). AIMSweb 1.0 assesses student’s ability in Reading Curriculum-Based Measures (R-CBM) and Maze. R-CBM is a standardized test that allows students and teachers to see reading progress. This test is taken individually and is quick and easy format for the student and teacher. MAZE, on the other hand, is a tool used to measure comprehension. Comprehension is a much more complex construct than fluency. The following information is retrieved from the Pearson AIMSweb Training workbook, RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 51 Maze is a multiple-choice cloze task that students complete while reading silently. To determine the student’s oral reading fluency, the teacher administering the assessment will time the student reading a cold passage and marking the number of correct words read per minute (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011). Accurate student placement is dependent upon the cut scores defined by AIMSweb or Acadience for Tier 1, 2 or 3. For example, the cut scores for Aims Web for Grade 2 R-CBM and Maze in Table 1 are: Table 1 AIMSweb second grade cut-scores for R-CBM and Maze (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011) The cut scores shown in Table 1 are used to determine key benchmarks throughout the year based upon students progress. Scores falling below the Tier 2 benchmark range would be in Tier 3 as they are not specifically defined within Pearson Inc.’s AIMSweb Default Cut Scores Explained publication (2011). The Data-Team refers to these scores and other curriculum assessment data to determine the most appropriate Tier placement. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 52 Acadience Reading is the former Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Acadience Reading helps teachers identify children at-risk for reading difficulty and determine skills to target for instruction and support. Acadience Reading is designed to support the Response to Intervention (RtI) model, which is a part of the MTSS framework. Acadience Reading is a standardized assessment that is reliable and valid, delivered in a quick assessment format that focuses on early literacy skills (Acadience Learning, 2020). With Acadience Reading, there are established benchmark goals and cut points to indicate at-risk assessment results. The screener is used three times per year as an indicator of growth per student using a similar assessment model for the year. The Acadience assessment for second grade focuses on foundational reading skills, such as phonics and word recognition, oral reading fluency and word use fluency. As with AIMSweb, Acadience Reading also aligns with Lexile reading levels. The reading composite score for Acadience Reading is outlined in Table 2: Table 2 AIMSweb second grade cut scores for reading composite. (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011) RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 53 Table 3 Acadience second grade cut scores for ORF The Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Scores are outlined in Table 3. The top bold number represents scoring at or above benchmark in which students would remain at Tier 1 for core support. The smaller number represents the cut point for at-risk students and would unlikely result in students meeting their reading levels without supports. Anything falling below the bottom number would place students in a Tier 3 category with the most significant need for intervention. The initial assessment administered in September is to provide a baseline to determine student needs. The mid-year assessment is administered in January with an end of year assessment in May both providing data to accurately depict student growth in the areas of fluency and comprehension. The three assessment points in the school year are encouraged by the assessment providers to ensure accurate and reliable growth data RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 54 for all students as a criterion-referenced assessment. In the district where the research was conducted, the assessment timeframe was predetermined by the district administrators and shared with the teachers within a window of testing dates for completion by an assessment team. The team consisted of several teachers performing an assessment sweep of all students in second grade, as well as other district classes between kindergarten and first grade. During testing time, students are pulled from their classroom to be individually assessed by the test administrator. Scores are then entered into an online scoring portal and shared with the classroom teacher, as well as entered into a joint data wall created in a district Google Sheets shared “data wall”. Data is analyzed by the classroom teachers, reading specialists and any other teacher who would work directly with the students. Data is used to make instructional decisions, in particular, in determining the appropriate tier placement for MTSS reading intervention support. The purpose of the data wall is for all teachers involved with a specific grade level cluster (3-4 classroom teachers and assigned reading specialist for Tier 2 or 3 interventions) to be able to collaboratively look at a student’s profile of data and accurately plan for instruction or intervention. The data wall is also shared with the School Psychologist, Principal, Director of Curriculum and Instruction and Director of Pupil Services. In the event a student progresses through the data team with additional needs for intensive interventions, the external team members are connected to the portal for easier review of data. Once data is collected and shared, teachers begin to make instructional decisions based upon the needs of each individual student in their grade level cluster and/or reading classroom. The use of the screening data sets the stage for RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 55 teachers to begin their instructional planning and delivery based upon the needs as they fall within each specified tier. Setting and Participants The participants in this action research study include the second grade cohort from eleven classrooms housed at the elementary school in one district. Second grade is located in one elementary school, where 279 second grade students were enrolled in 2019-2020 (253 in 2018-2019) in a building with 768 total enrollment grades 2-4. In addition to the eleven classroom teachers, there are two reading specialists assigned to service Tier 2 and Tier 3 students in second to fourth grade. There are five special education teachers providing services to all IEP students grade 2-4 in a supplemental, autistic support and itinerant learning model. One English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher services all English Learners K-6. One building principal oversees the operation for the second-fourth grade elementary school. The Elementary School is located in Butler County where it is academically ranked first among all Butler County schools according to the Pittsburgh Business Times, and 10th in Western Pennsylvania. The district is home to 3395 K-12 students, with five school buildings within a K-1, 2-4, 5-6, 7-8 and 9-12 grade configuration. According to data provided by the PA Future Ready Index, students at the elementary school (grades 3-4) are performing on the PSSA with 87.3% proficiency in ELA, 74.4% proficiency in Math and 91.3% proficiency in Science. There is 100% reported PVAAS growth in ELA for all students, with 77% within the Special Education subgroup. There is 75% PVAAS growth among all students in Math, RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 56 and the special education subgroup representing 78% . The school’s attendance rate is 97.1%, which is above the 85.8% Pennsylvania statewide average and statewide 2030 goal of 94.1% (Future Ready PA Index, 2019). The district encompasses 46.35 square miles and four communities, Adams Township, Valencia Borough, Mars Borough and Middlesex Township. Within the full 3395 student population, 6.1% of the students are listed as economically disadvantaged and 10.3% of the students are classified as special education. The district enrollment data shows 95.5% white student population, 2% Asian, 1.1% Hispanic, 1.2% Black, and 0.2% as two or more races (Future Ready PA Index, 2019). At the elementary school, the second grade was specifically targeted for this action research due to the newly implemented MTSS framework and critical foundational year for reading skill acquisition. Second grade typically experiences a transitional period from the core reading foundational skills into the third grade where students are expected to demonstrate proficient or advanced performance on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). To best determine the findings of growth within this research, two years of second grade data was analyzed. The first year of data is from the 2018-2019 year when second grade students were administered the AIMSweb assessment. The student data groups are different, therefore the focus of the research is specific to the curriculum and effectiveness of the instructional materials used during core instruction, Tier 1 and response to interventions delivered in Tier 2 and 3. The second component of student data is from the 2019-2020 school year using the Acadience RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 57 Reading Assessment. Both assessments target the same skill set and are assessed within the same beginning, middle and end of year format. In September 2019, the School Board of Directors were provided with an outline of the IRB Application and guidelines for the scope of the action research plan. The School Board of Directors approved the research plan as presented in a 9-0 vote in a public session. As part of the action research, twelve-second grade teachers and reading specialists who work directly with second grade students, were voluntarily asked to provide feedback in an anonymous online survey that presented open-ended and rating scale questions pertaining to MTSS instruction, resources, and successes. Each received an invitation to participate along with an IRB approved disclosure statement (Appendix A). Eight of twelve teachers participated in the anonymous survey. The survey was designed by the researcher to include ten open-ended questions and ten rating scale questions pertinent to the MTSS framework and delivery within their classroom and school. Randomly selected second grade teachers’ classrooms were subjects in MTSS fidelity checks following an IRB approved checklist (Appendix B). The checklist focused on the instruction occurring during WIN time and the resources utilized by the individual teachers and small group of students. Six WIN time fidelity checks were conducted throughout the course of the school year. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic issued a government shut down of all public schools in the state of Pennsylvania, therefore inhibiting the continued collection of data for fidelity checks to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 58 occur as part of the research study. Fidelity check data was collected from September 2019 - February 2020. Intervention and Research Plan Once the topic of research was identified to focus on the impact of enhancing core reading instruction in a Tier 1, 2 and 3 MTSS framework, the researcher began to review literature related to second grade reading instruction, intervention tools, and data analysis. Core reading instruction is a critical element to building a successful foundation for literacy success in students. Some learners can acquire foundational reading skills with less formal and implicit instruction, many learners require explicit, systematic instruction in and practice with these foundational skills (Bulat et. al., 2017). A core program builds upon the foundation starting in pre-kindergarten and building through the primary grade levels. There have been many studies conducted to research the best approach to core reading programs, supplemental resources, as well as determining if too much phonics or phonemic awareness can hinder the academic growth of students in becoming stronger readers. Duke and Mesmer examined the inadequacies of teachers spending too little time on phonics instruction. (2018-2019) While there is research to support arguments on this topic, it is recommended that 30-60 minutes per day, on average in a K-2 instructional setting, is spent on various instructional methods infusing phonics, phonemic awareness, and vocabulary (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). While core reading instruction can consist of a whole-language balanced literacy series, is that enough to provide students with the appropriate level of skill-based instruction to become successful and fluent readers by the time they enter third grade? With a structured RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 59 intervention system in place addressing all of the skills that students demonstrate a deficiency, are teachers still able to meet student needs with appropriate levels of supports to allow for growth? The MTSS framework is a fluid system of interventions where students have the ability, based upon the data, to move between tiers. Within those tiers, the same content is taught, but at varying levels of intensity, which brings the researcher to the poignant question, does this work? In this District, the MTSS framework allows for a set, structured time period during the instructional day to focus on what students need. Typically, this instructional time would be available five days a week for thirty to forty minutes each day. In this District, WIN time could only be scheduled a maximum of three days a week for thirty minutes each day. In some random cases, a cluster of second grade classrooms has a four day WIN time based upon their schedule availability and the level of student need. The discrepancy in the time allotment is due to the shared special area teachers between other elementary schools, and the shear number of teachers and grade level sections in the building. The purpose of the in-depth research study is to determine if there is a connection to the instructional materials in place and the student’s response toward becoming a more fluent reader, or if the resources are not digging deep enough into the core components of reading instruction to provide a solid foundation of reading for all students. Another indicator to make note of during this research analysis would be the consideration for time and its impact on any level of success for instructional support for students. The District has a unique configuration where one building houses all elevensecond grade classrooms. For purposes of the research, all eleven classes would be a part RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 60 of the research project. Determining the scope of the question, and identifying an issue to be resolved through data analysis became evident. Several pieces of data were disaggregated to make correlations with student movement between tiers in response to the interventions in place indicative of the benchmark assessment scoring guidelines. Another critical piece of data analysis within the research was to gather input from the teachers working directly with the second grade students. Finally, a third data point was the fidelity check-lists that represent what occurs during the natural setting of WIN time instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3. The intentional sampling of second grade data was based upon the foundational reading skills needed within the early literacy years as students prepared to become more independent readers with fluency and comprehension. The selection of the second grade level was purposeful, in that this homogenous study would reflect a core grade level where students had two prior years of building foundational skills in reading, and the ability to transfer those skills into more mature reading fluency and comprehension. The sample size consisted of 253 second grade students in 2018-2019 and 279 in 2019-2020 within one school using the same type of assessment measures, same time for instruction in WIN, reading specialist support during MTSS, and identical core reading materials. What I Need, or otherwise referred to as WIN, has been the scheduled time period dedicated to tiered interventions for MTSS. While there are other periods of time during the day where students can receive intervention support, typically all movement occurs during this 30-40 minute scheduled period. The eleven-second grade classrooms were broken into clusters of 3-4 homerooms, creating a smaller group where teachers could RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 61 work together as a team collaborating instructional planning and delivery. The cluster approach also supports scheduling with reading specialists attempting to meet with as many Tier 2 and 3 students as possible during the structured intervention time. The clusters were established based upon similar master schedules where the 3-4 homeroom teachers were able to have a block of time for consecutive reading instruction at least 3 times per week. While most researchers recommend fidelity to intervention models reflect 5 days per week at 30 minutes per intervention period, the elementary school’s dynamic and staffing structure made that benchmark nearly impossible. The district decided upon a maximum of three days for dedicated WIN time to occur. During WIN time, students move to their appropriate tier for more personalized instruction. No new material should be taught during WIN time period. Instruction is based upon data collected from various sources, including benchmark assessments, formative classroom assessments in reading, summative assessments from the reading series and teacher observations. WIN time instruction for Tier 1 is based upon providing in-depth practice on already taught and learned skills, in a center-based approach. In a typical Tier 1 WIN time period, you may see a classroom with approximately 18 students (of the original 24 assigned students) working in smaller groups. Some independent work would consist of language skill practice with workbooks, practice pages, and technology-based resources. The classroom teacher works with small groups of students on more focused skills for additional formative assessment data and support. You may also see students partnered with others in the classroom to do shared reading, discussions and skill-based activities. During the 30-minute time period, it is common to observe a rotation of the small groups RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 62 and activities after 15 minutes. Students are aware of their routine and their WIN time expectations as they are an embedded part of the learning experience on a regular basis. In the Tier 2 and 3 setting, you will see a reading specialist working with a small group of 6-8 students on scripted, research-based intervention programs, such as Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI). Students in these tiers are receiving a more intensive intervention supports based upon the data presented through benchmark assessment decline, performance in the classroom, as well as teacher observations. Students in Tier 2 have progress monitoring completed each week so there is a running record of their performance based upon the student’s individual response to the intervention. During Tier 2, the teacher works with a group of students with very similar needs in an effort to provide targeted instruction based upon the needs exhibited by all students in the group. A student assigned to Tier 2 has the ability to move fluidly between the Tiers based upon their performance and response to the interventions. Data analysis is a critical component reviewed by all teachers on a routine basis to make additional data-informed instructional decisions. Tier 3 students are engaged in a critical level of explicit, scripted interventions, designed to develop key skills where students experience the most significant deficit according to the data. Teachers participate in grade level cluster meetings on an eleven day rotation. The rotation is in place at the elementary school based upon the eleven different clusters that exist between grades two and four. The data-team meetings are conducted by the reading specialists, all teachers in the grade level cluster, school psychologist and oftentimes the building principal. During the data-team meeting, there is a format that is RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 63 followed to keep focused discussions, and data is recorded into the data wall based upon the topics discussed. In a typical meeting, students performance is discussed with regard to assessment data, WIN time performance, and if teachers have concerns with their progression of skills. During these meetings, it is determined whether or not a student would benefit from shifting to another tier for more or less support based upon their appropriate level of need. The process is very fluid, but educators cautiously look at data points within a six week timeframe to determine if trend lines demonstrate growth or regression and require movement between the tiers. While the focus of all tiers is reading instruction based upon the PA Core Standards and the approved district ELA curriculum, materials and instructional approaches may vary based upon the needs demonstrated by the students in each classroom and grade level cluster. The reading materials used for core instruction include the McGraw Hill’s reading series, Wonders 2014, and an additional supplemental tool for phonics instruction, Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum . The Wonders Reading series is a traditional whole language program with anthology texts, language practice books, and built in phonics instruction. The district has been working strictly according to the Wonders series since the textbook adoption occurred in 2014. Majority of the instruction occurring at the second grade level is series based, in a traditional five-day instructional delivery method with an introduction to a story on day 1 building up to an assessment on day 5. As part of the initial review toward MTSS in the district, it was determined as part of the PDE cohort that phonics and phonemic awareness was lacking depth. As part of the PDE cohort, the district purchased materials and professional development for all K-2 teachers RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 64 to implement Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum to replace the Wonders Phonemic Awareness component on a daily basis. Heggerty instruction takes place in Tier 1 in a whole group setting for approximately 10-12 minutes daily. In some cases, the Reading Specialists will reiterate the Heggerty components into their Tier 2 instruction for additional reinforcement of skills. The Heggerty Curriculum focuses on eight phonemic awareness skills in a scripted 10-12 minute burst of content delivery in a repetitive format. The goal of Heggerty is to expose students to multiple opportunities to respond orally to phonemic awareness cues in a fast-paced drill. Lessons continually build upon each skill, which allows systematic growth and development of phonemic awareness skills for students. During WIN time, teachers utilize practice pages of skills and engage in activities from a variety of educational resources. One in particular (and new in 2019 to second grade) is the Sadlier Progress workbooks for standards-aligned practice in ELA content. The workbooks provide an additional skill-based practice for students to independently show their level of understanding of the skill. To determine a wider range of growth and supportive data analysis, the use of a teacher survey was used to gain qualitative data with open-ended responses shared anonymously and voluntarily. The benefit associated to teachers providing feedback with this electronic questionnaire was to provide a voice in sharing perceptions of MTSS through the use of instructional tools, instructional time, data, success and academic growth for the model over the first two years of implementation. Additional quantitative data was pulled from the questionnaire through attitudinal questions presented in a Likert-Scale model to measure the responder’s perception of how components of MTSS RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 65 were working at the second grade level. A final piece of quantitative data was presented as a check-list of what occurred during WIN time at randomly selected periods throughout the course of the school year. Data represented the natural events of instruction, materials used, type of instructional strategies, and determined if there was fidelity in the approach to WIN time based upon those defined points. All three data points were selected based upon their alignment and prospective correlation in determining a definitive response to the articulated research questions: Q1: How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student response to the core instruction and interventions in place? Q2: Are the instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students? Q3. What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to reading achievement? Potential Financial Implications Based upon the findings of the research, the following financial implications may become a factor for the district to consider. 1. Is the core reading program providing the appropriate depth of instruction for all foundational reading skills? Would new core instructional materials need to be purchased? Would a core reading program be a best fit for delivering foundational reading skills with success? RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 66 a. Purchasing a new core reading program would potentially cost the district upwards of $250,000 pertaining to costs associated with a K-6 textbook adoption cycle for approximately 1100 students. If an updated core reading program similar to the Wonders 2014 program in place wouldn’t be the direction the district proceeded, the costs would dramatically decrease when focusing only on purchasing supplemental materials that highlighted areas of weakness. Such areas would be phonics, fluency and comprehension. 2. Are the current intervention tools used aligned with the students’ needs? Will additional research-based intervention tools need to be purchase to provide a broader scope of support to students needing Tier 2 or 3 support? a. Intervention programs range between $15,000 and $30,000 depending on the program type. There are some programs that offer both online and print resources with embedded progress monitoring tools. These items would be based upon where the district sees a deficit with student reading achievement. 3. Are the data points providing the teaching staff with enough information to determine if a student is successfully responding to interventions and core instruction in place? Would additional data tools be needed and purchased? a. Universal screening tools, such as AIMSweb or Acadience Reading, can typically cost $1.00 per student and then subsequent costs associated to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 67 operating an online data management system. Other comprehensive tools used for benchmark assessments and progress monitoring could cost upwards of $20,000 depending on the type of product and company creating the tool. Currently, the district is implementing a new universal screening tool, but the research would determine if the data available from this particular tool truly helps determine the skills in which students demonstrate a need for more support. 4. Are there enough teacher supports in place to effectively meet the needs of students at each level? Are additional teachers and/or reading specialists needed to make MTSS more successful and promote more student reading achievement? a. Typically, a newly hired teacher costs upwards of $80,000 (including a benefits package) dependent upon the amount of experience they bring to the position. Considerations to increase the staffing support would be a long-range budget projection based upon the evident need through available data. 5. Do teachers fully understand the concept of MTSS and how to plan instruction based upon data? Do more professional development opportunities need to occur? a. Professional development costs can range from bringing in professional experts to assist in the training, or to provide additional time for staff to meet as a team and plan for MTSS. Either way, there are costs associated RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 68 with providing effective and quality professional growth opportunities. Substitute coverage costs per day in this district are $92.00 per day, and the teacher curriculum rate defined by the collective bargaining agreement is $34.00 per hour (if teaching staff were to be pulled for work outside of their contractual day). Professional training support contracted outside of the district could range between $800.00 to $2500.00 per day. 6. Do teachers have the opportunity to meet as a data-team within a reasonable amount of time to discuss student growth or regression during the school day, or does the district need to consider hiring a rotation of substitutes to provide coverage for data-team meetings to occur? Does the district need to consider a schedule adjustment to allow for time before or after-school without students once a month to have professional development or WIN planning meetings to better prepare for instruction? a. The scheduling adjustment per building to allow for teachers to meet during the school day would include the coverage of teachers pulled from their class, therefore costing the district a substitute per teacher at $92.00 per day. Due to the nature of these meetings, this would be a recurring cost scheduled at least 4-6 times per year utilizing multiple substitutes for each scheduled meeting day. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 69 Regardless of the findings through this action research, the district should be prepared to expand upon its resources and time management with staff to be able to provide a more in-depth and increased quality program for all students. Research Design, Methods and Data Collection A mixed methods approach was used in this research study to analyze both qualitative and quantitative measures. Student assessment data from two different cohorts of students would determine the direct correlation between instructional interventions in place at Tier 1, 2 and 3 in between benchmark assessment dates to determine growth or regression rates for students. It would also determine the amount of students moving between the tiered levels of instruction. The data would reflect two years, or six data points, worth of benchmark scores administered after 18 weeks of instruction and interventions delivered at Tier 1, 2 and 3. All data points represent anonymous second grade students assessed under the same conditions using the same measures as created through either the AIMSweb 1.0 or Acadience Reading tools. The assessments were both delivered in a paper-pencil format where student responses were recorded manually by a test administrator and then entered into a data management platform within the software. An additional step finalizes the process for the district teachers when a paraprofessional enters the data points into a district-created a shared Google data wall tool and shares with groups of teachers working with clusters of students. The data wall has the capability to color-code scores to determine the appropriate tier of instruction based upon the cut-scores for the aforementioned RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 70 assessment. Data is reviewed throughout the year as a guide to determine appropriate placement of students within the tier levels of intervention. The second piece of data collected was an anonymous questionnaire created by the researcher. The questionnaire consists of twenty questions, ten Likert-Scale and ten open-ended prompts. The focus of the questionnaire was to gather input from teachers who are planning, analyzing data, and implementing the interventions on a daily basis. The feedback was reported in an anonymous format. Participants shared their reality of the instructional environment and their beliefs that would potentially contribute to change resulting from findings in the action research plan. While the open-ended questions allow for more broad input, the validity of these results vary based upon their perspective and opinion. As a way to disaggregate the themes from the responses, the researcher looked to target threads and reoccurring responses in a numerical format to provide a more quantitative approach. As part of the research process, a formal request for approval from the IRB of California University, documentation outlining the action research topic, research questions, participants, methods and timeline were submitted in August 2019. Also accompanying the IRB application, the questionnaire and fidelity checklist were included. Volunteer participants in the survey were provided with a disclosure statement (Appendix A). Research was conducted and analyzed between August 2019 and May 2020. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 71 Validity The data collection process within this study had individual sets of responses gathered from teachers voluntarily providing feedback based upon their personal experiences within the classroom and WIN time setting. Internally, the structure allowed for data to be collected during the natural classroom setting through observations using a Fidelity Checklist tool (Appendix B). Also, reading skills were measured using the criterion-referenced universal screening benchmark assessment tools three times a year for each second grade student. The relationship between the assessment sores and interventions used would be more perceived connections, but would provide data that showed a series of weeks where instruction occurred based upon data provided and then another assessment to measure if any growth was evident. The process would repeat itself two times in the academic year. The assessment would indicate the level of reading fluency each student demonstrated under the same testing criteria and environment. As a consequence of administering the benchmark assessment tools, there is a realization by the teachers where each student is placed upon their perceived level of performance on specific tasks. A determination then would be made to see if that data correlated to their performance in other similar classroom tasks, and their need for instructional interventions, or if a shift back into core (Tier 1) instruction is warranted. The consistency of the data used for the research allows for a reliable format to be followed when determining the levels of student movement between the tiers. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 72 All data points are accurately represented based upon information generated through AIMSweb and Acadience Reading assessment tools. The responses gathered in the anonymous survey accurately reflected what was shared for each open-ended questions and Likert-Scale prompts as they directly pertained to the survey questions. All research data points and methods were designed based upon their correction to the three defined research questions for this study. The researcher disaggregated data based upon what was accurately represented from each form of data collection to determine its correlation between instructional resources and academic growth movement between tiers. The focus of the research was grounded in a newly implemented second grade MTSS framework. The same study could be conducted with different grade level data, using multiple buildings or across several different district locations. Triangulate Data Data collected was triangulated by the three methods: student data, teacher feedback, and observation of instructional time. These three points represented a full picture of the instructional choices of materials to appropriately implement as per the data analysis from the universal screening tools. Within these points, the research would be able to determine a probable connection, or direct impact, to how student performance is affiliated to the type of instruction and focus toward skills not fully developed per student or groups of students. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 73 Summary In selecting these three types of data points, a broader scope of information could be generated linking to systematic programming as being effective or ineffective, as well as if the planning of instruction is providing the appropriate levels of support to apply foundational reading skills. The data collected and analyzed would provide a solid baseline to potentially answer the three defined research questions. As data is analyzed, the research will look to determine if there are any additional areas of focus that could potentially contribute to the perceived lack of success within the current MTSS framework and shed light to a probable plan of action for the district to undertake as a method of continuous improvement of instruction to support student academic achievement. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 74 CHAPTER IV Results Introduction This chapter contains the results of the action research conducted to determine the impact of enhancing core reading instruction in a second grade classroom over a two year period of implementing MTSS. Data was collected from three sources, utilizing Universal Screening tools, AIMSweb and Acadience Reading for two cohorts of second grade students, data from fidelity walkthrough classroom observations and a voluntary second grade teacher survey. The data collected will provide a snapshot of instruction, intervention and assessment occurring during the MTSS structured time within the weekly schedule as a new method of providing support to all students. The data represents the response to which students are receiving core instruction, intervention support and applying their skills through benchmark assessments. The data collected in this action research study was based upon three focus questions: Q1: How is the movement between tiers (1 and 2) reflective of the student response to the core instruction and interventions in place? Q2: Are instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students? Q3: What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to reading achievement? This chapter will provide more detailed information based upon the data collection tools and the results presented to correlate to the research questions and RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 75 analysis of the findings. Data was collected as part of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework that was newly established in the District in 2018. As part of that framework, teachers implemented specific interventions for core reading support during a structured classroom period, What I Need (WIN), three times per week. During this period, groups of students would work in small-groups or large-groups, depending upon what the data showed their need to be. Reading specialists focused on more intensive intervention support for students who fell in Tier 2 or 3, and the level of instruction was adjusted according to their specific skill need in reading. Throughout this chapter there will be graphs, charts and tables used to explain the results of the student assessments, classroom observations and teacher input as they pertain directly to the research questions. Results Typically, 80% of the student population would fall within the Tier 1 range of instruction. In this case study for the fall assessment data points, 74% of the students fell within the Tier 1 level for Reading in 2018-2019 based upon the AIMSweb 1.0 data, and 77% of the students fell within the Tier 1 level for Reading in 2019-2020 based upon the September 2019 Acadience Reading data. Subsequently, Tier 2 should reflect 15% of the student population according to their universal screening data. In the case of this study, 10% of the student population was in Tier in 2018-2019 and 11% of the student population in 2019-2020 fell within the Tier 2 level for interventions at the first benchmark assessment of the year. Lastly, Tier 3 would typically represent 5% of the student population. The 2018-2019 data showed 16% and 2019-2020 data represented RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 76 12%. As the MTSS triangles in Figure 3 represent, the district shows discrepancy between the appropriate range of tiered needs based upon their yearly baseline data. Two universal screening tools were analyzed in this research study based upon the district’s use and change of assessment tools within the two year time frame. Year one, AIMSweb 1.0 was used for all reading benchmark assessments. Although, as a result of district-wide training through the state of Pennsylvania and the end of life status of the AIMSweb 1.0 tool, the district chose to move to a new screening tool. Acadience Reading was highly recommended by the MTSS researchers from Michigan and Pennsylvania that the District worked with through their state-wide training cohorts, therefore the district purchased Acadience Reading and Math to be implemented in 2019-2020 for all K-2 students. Both assessment measures (AIMSweb and Acadience) focus on similar skills, therefore the transition between the two assessments was a matter of learning the administrative process of the new tool. The data analyzed in this research study presented similar concepts within the two different screening tools. AIMSweb measures Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), which presents omitted words and substituted words. Another component is the ORF Accuracy, which assesses the accuracy of how many words students can read per minute. In the Acadience Reading assessment, the Reading-Curriculum Based Measures (R-CBM) assess the reading progression of short passages (or probes) while measuring the reading fluency of the student. The MAZE component assesses oral reading fluency and comprehension from a three-minute timed reading passage of a cold read. Within both assessment measures, these four items were included in the composite score as they were RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 77 the most similar areas of skill measurement to find a trend between cohorts and assessment years. A composite score combines all assessment components and reflects the total score of the entire cohort combined. The data represented in the Figure 3 shows the composite scores, including both analyzed components, where students were at the beginning of the year benchmark assessment as compared to the researched MTSS Framework model. Figure 3 Fall Composite Scores 5% 16% 12% 15% 10% 11% 80% 74% 77% MTSS Framework 2018-2019 2019-2020 The data represented in Figure 3 demonstrates that the incoming second grade students, over a two year time span, came in at relatively similar starting points with their reading ability. Both cohorts are not far from the MTSS framework suggestion of tiers, but both represent approximately 7%-11% or more students falling within the most significant tier (3) needing intensive intervention supports. In addition, the Tier 1 group falls between 3%-6% below the suggested 80%, and approximately 4%-5% falling in Tier 2. While these numbers, at first glance, seem to be on par with the set guidelines of MTSS at the initial benchmark assessment, there seems to be a pattern emerging with the incoming student preparation from their first grade curriculum and instruction. While the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 78 core instruction appears to be sufficiently providing instruction to support students, it appears that the students with the most need are not receiving the supports needed to be successful. Figure 4 represents the same two cohorts at the mid-year benchmark assessment composite score (including the AIMSweb R-CBM from MAZE and ORF (Fluency) and ORF (Accuracy from Acadience) as they correlate with the MTSS framework. Figure 4 Winter Composite Scores 5% 9% 11% 15% 9% 5% 80% 82% 84% MTSS Framework 2018-2019 2019-2020 Figure 4 demonstrates the most significant change evident between the two cohorts and the benchmark assessment results. In the first cohort (2018-2019), the teachers were implementing MTSS in its initial year. Two reading specialists were implementing brand new interventions that they were learning along with the students. Classroom teachers were implementing WIN time three days per week, and creating instructional materials from scratch to meet the needs of their Tier 1 students. The same core instruction was in place with no revisions or supplemental programming embedded. In the second year (2019-2020), the data indicates that the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 79 students made some significant improvements and there were 4% more students placing in Tier 1 than suggested through the MTSS framework. The concern still lies with the Tier 3 students, which are 6% higher than the MTSS triangle suggests. The Tier 2 students fall 10% lower than what the triangle suggests, leaving me to believe that there is a concern with the interventions presented to students at the Tier 2 level that are not addressing the specific needs of students that they are regressing in their attainment of reading skills. The next graph represents the growth of students between the AimsWeb fall, winter and spring benchmarks as a cohort in 2018-2019. While this graph does not indicate the actual shift of students between tiers, it represents the movement of the group as a whole according to their composite score of R-CBM and Maze concepts. Figure 5 Growth Rate Between Tiers with AIMSweb Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 90 67.5 45 22.5 0 Fall Winter Spring The data in Figure 5 represents the scores produced by the 2018-2019 second RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 80 grade students on the AIMSweb assessment. The numbers indicate the percentage of students tested in second grade per benchmark assessment window. Each tier has an established benchmark score that indicates if benchmark was met or not. The graph demonstrates the cohort movement between each assessment, as their response to the interventions and instruction in place. During the initial second grade assessment in the fall 2018-2019, 76% of the students performed above benchmark, while 9% were at benchmark and 15% fell below benchmark. These scores represented a higher level of students needing more significant intervention programming. At the winter benchmark, there was an increase to 82% at Tier 1, no movement in Tier 2 steady at 9%, and a decline from Tier 3 to 9%. In the final spring assessment, the Tier 1 percent of students increased slightly to 83%, Tier 2 remained stagnant at 9%, but Tier 3 continued to decline to 8%. Questions remain as to what is happening at the Tier 2 level. Are students moving in and out of the tiers due to their response to the interventions? Are the students that are progressing in Tier 3 shifting to Tier 2? The data does not show what caused the movement, or why Tier 2 percentages remained the same. More data analysis would need to occur to determine the root cause to the cohort movement between the tiers. The positive results from this data is that there is movement and growth with students receiving intensive interventions at the Tier 3 level, and slight growth in Tier 1, but it does not indicate if there is growth within the Tier 1 students as they respond to the enhanced core instruction. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 81 Figure 6 Growth Rate Between Tiers with Acadience Reading Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 90 67.5 45 22.5 0 Fall Winter In Figure 6, the numbers represent the percentage of students in the second grade tested cohort that scored at, above, or below benchmark. Of the 269-270 students (enrollment increased between the fall and winter testing window) assessed between the fall and winter benchmark assessments, in Tier 1, 77% of them were above benchmark, or at Tier 1 in the fall and increased to 84% in the winter assessment. Of the 269 students assessed at benchmark, 11% fell in the Tier 2 range in the fall assessment, but that percentage declined to 5% for the winter assessment. Tier 3, or below benchmark students, saw the most consistent movement between the fall and winter assessments with 12% of students in the fall and 11% in the winter. As indicated in this graph, there is a significant gap in the number of students who fall within Tier 1 and Tiers 2-3. The students performing above benchmark do represent a decline from the fall to winter screening periods, which contributes to the growth of the students in Tier 2. The growth in Tier 2 represents an increase of students needing intervention support, therefore not RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 82 representing a positive movement based upon the results of the assessment. The Tier 2 and 3 students appear to be transitioning between these two tiers based upon the rise and decline of the numbers of students falling between each level. For a positive trend line to occur, the data would need to show increases in Tier 1 over the course of each assessment period, and a decline in the Tier 2 and 3 numbers to indicate more movement of students requiring less intervention support. Tier 2 would expect a fluctuating trend line that would indicate students transitioning from Tier 3 to 2 and then again from Tier 2 to 1. Note: the spring benchmark did not occur due to COVID-19 pandemic school closures. Again, this data provides similar results to the AIMSweb graph in Figure 5, where there is a significant discrepancy in the growth levels of students falling within Tier 1 and Tiers 2-3. The positive with this graph representation is that there is a steady growth line for Tier 1 and a steady decline in Tier 2. There is a slight decline in the number of students in Tier 3, which would indicate the interventions are working in all three tiers over the course of the first semester of instruction and intervention. While there are signs of expected positive trends, the concerns still lie with the amount of students who continue needing intensive interventions, which is a higher percentage than the suggested MTSS framework percentages. Taking a closer look at the scoring components of AIMSweb and Acadience Reading assessments, there are targeted scores for each benchmark window, which indicate the appropriate tier level for students to be placed to receive correlated interventions. Table 4 and 5 represent the target scores for each assessment window. Students are placed in tiers depending upon how the target scores fall within the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 83 above, at, or below benchmark standard defined by the assessment company. Table 4 AIMSweb Benchmark Scores for R-CBM and Maze R-CBM MAZE FALL Tier 1 - Independent 55 4 Tier 2 - Instructional 21 1 Tier 1 - Independent 80 9 Tier 2 - Instructional 47 4 Tier 1 - Independent 92 14 Tier 2 - Instructional 61 8 WINTER SPRING The expected growth for R-CBM between benchmark assessments at Tier 1 is a 25 point increase from fall to winter and 12 points from winter to spring, with an overall growth of 37 points. At the Tier 2 level, the expected growth rate is 26 points from fall to winter, 14 points from winter to spring and an overall growth rate of 40 points. The expectation of growth is greater in the Tier 2 level as students need to close the gap in their reading skills with the appropriate level of instruction and interventions. Students who are making progress as expected in the Tier 2 level will be within the Tier 1 level as presented in the fall benchmark (with a score of 61). This will still leave students at a level behind, but the growth is what gives the indication that students are finding success with the intensive interventions in place. With the Maze assessment there is a much RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 84 smaller anticipated growth rate between benchmark assessments with a five point growth margin between fall and winter, six points between winter and spring and a total growth increase of ten points within 1-year. In the 2018-2019 cohort of students, the range of student scores for the R-CBM and Maze were distributed as shown in Table 5 as they align to the set scores for AIMSweb. The scores in Table 5 represent how the second grade cohort performed, within a range per tier, compared to the set scores for each assessment type (R-CBM and Maze) per testing window. Table 5 AIMSweb Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges R-CBM Cohort Range Maze Cohort Range Tier 1 Independent 55 55-174 4 4-28 Tier 2 Instructional 21 10-54 1 3 Tier 1 Independent 80 80-167 9 9-29 Tier 2 Instructional 47 50-79 4 6-8 Tier 1 Independent 92 92-212 14 14-31 Tier 2 Instructional 61 83-91 8 11-13 Fall Winter Spring RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 85 As indicated in the chart, the score range for students in Tier 1 are significantly higher than the benchmark scores of 55, 80 and 92. The Tier 2 students are showing a lower score range in the fall, with 11 points below the benchmark range. There is a slight improvement in the range of scores during the winter benchmark where the cohort range all scored above the mark of 47 with a scoring range of 50-79. In the spring, the increase was the highest with students performing on the R-CBM 22 points higher than the Tier 2 benchmark range and above. The same pattern of growth appears in the Maze assessment throughout the three assessment windows where students are performing within the suggested range or above. While these ranges in the assessment windows show there is improvement made over the course of one instructional year, they do not represent where the growth is and if students are transitioning between tiers as a response to the interventions and core programming in place. Table 6 Acadience Reading Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges ORF Fluency Cohort Range ORF Accuracy Cohort Range Core Support-Tier 1 52-67+ 52-168 16 16-57 Strategic Support Tier 2 37-51 37-50 8 8-15 Core Support - Tier 1 72-90+ 72-188 21 21-70 Strategic Support Tier 2 55-71 56-71 13 13-20 Spring 87 N/A 27 N/A Fall Winter RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 86 The Acadience scores represent ranges for students to be above, at or below benchmark during the three testing periods in a grade level. The scores represented in Table 6 and 7 reflect second grade thresholds for students to meet as they are assessed in their ORF (Fluency and Accuracy). The first research question was designed to determine the effectiveness of the interventions and instruction in place, and how students responded. How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student response to the core instruction and interventions in place? Analyzing the data with the research question in mind, the researcher took a deeper look at the individual scores from the fall, winter and spring benchmark assessments between Tier 1, 2 and 3 to determine the percentage of movement between tiers in either direction to determine the response to the third research question: What is the largest area of concern with skill acquisition in reading that is addressed at each tier? This research questions hones in on the specific skill deficit area represented through the various data points collected through the universal screening data. Through AIMSweb and Acadience Reading assessments, and the parallel concepts of data analyzed for this study, the focus was on reading fluency skills and comprehension skills at a surface level of understanding. Through these two measures, there were spikes in growth for almost all of the students. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 87 Table 7 AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for R-CBM FALL to WINTER WINTER to SPRING TIER 1 to TIER 2 4 students or 1.59% 2 students or 0.79% TIER 2 to TIER 1 14 students or 5.57% 15 students or 6.04% TIER 3 to TIER 2 13 students or 5.17% 0 students or 0% Table 7 represents the number of students who performed at each tier and made movement between the benchmark assessment windows after receiving interventions in their placed tier. There were no students who performed at Tier 3 that showed enough growth to move directly into Tier 1 for core instruction. Table 8 AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for Maze FALL to WINTER WINTER to SPRING TIER 1 to TIER 2 1 student or 0.39% 10 students or 4.0% TIER 2 to TIER 1 11 students or 4.38% 2 students or 0.80% TIER 3 to TIER 2 8 students or 3.18% 1 student or 0.39% TIER 3 to TIER 1 17 students or 6.77% 3 students or 1.19% Table 8 represents the number of students in the second grade cohort that performed at an individual tier level during the fall benchmark and made some type of movement to another tier placement over the course of the year. An interesting find with this data is that there was significant movement of students performing initially in the fall benchmark with a below benchmark score than moving two tiers into Tier 1 over the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 88 course of 18 weeks September to January. The overall population in second grade in 2018-2019 was 251 students, although there were increases and decreases within individual classes the movement balanced out by the assessment window. Throughout the course of the school year, there were 219 students placed in Tier 1 after the fall benchmark. After a series of interventions in place, occurring three times per week, only 5 of the 219 Tier 1 students did not exhibit enough growth to meet benchmark and transitioned into a Tier 2 placement. After receiving focused interventions from a reading specialist three times per week for approximately sixteen weeks, 14 students demonstrated growth in their response to the skills taught at a consistent level to meet benchmark and moved back into Tier 1 without intervention supports. These findings are consistent with the limited experiences of providing instruction and interventions in a tiered format. The surprising data was the movement within the Maze assessment during the winter to spring benchmark when 10% of the students did not grow enough to meet the benchmark to remain in a Tier 1 classroom. After a closer review of the individual data, a significant portion of those students had scores drop at least 5-8 points. This dramatic shift would prompt a response to the second research question, are instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students? This data would present concerns as to how effective the instruction is during the Tier 1 WIN time with a general education teacher, and if materials or resources used provided all students with the support they need to be successful. The year two cohort, 2019-2020, only provides data between the fall and winter benchmarks due to the COVID-19 pandemic and school closure. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 89 Table 9 Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF-Accuracy FALL to WINTER TIER 1 to TIER 2 2 students or 0.71% TIER 2 to TIER 1 32 students or 11.46% TIER 3 to TIER 2 7 students or 2.50% TIER 3 to TIER 1 4 students or 1.43% Table 9 represents the whole cohort of second grade students that tested in the fall and winter benchmarks for ORF-Accuracy, and demonstrated tier movement as a total percentage. The interesting data piece is that 1.43% of the students did make significant enough gains to move two tiers into Tier 1 for core instruction with no intervention support. Table 10 Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF-Fluency FALL to WINTER TIER 1 to TIER 2 13 students or 4.65% TIER 2 to TIER 1 39 students or 13.97% TIER 3 to TIER 2 8 students or 2.86% TIER 3 to TIER 1 17 students or 6.09% Table 10 has the greatest amount of movement reported for students. A significance number of students moved between Tier 3 to Tier 1 with their fluency. In some cases, students’ scores increased 30 points individually. The question remains as to RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 90 what caused such dramatic growth. The growth could be indicative of the second year of MTSS, or a better understanding of the interventions and how to align them appropriately with the individual student needs. There were 37 students that did not meet the benchmark goal for ORF-Accuracy, where students had to read as many words correct per minute in three cold passages in a three-minute time period. Of the 37 students, 13 of them showed enough improvement within the first sixteen weeks of interventions to have 35% shift instructional tiers successfully. Students assessed for the ORF-Fluency/ comprehension assessment, or retell segment of the Acadience assessment, 48 students fell below benchmark during the fall assessment. With the intensive intervention programs in place during three days per week, 39 students showed enough growth to move into Tier 1. This growth indicates an 81% success rate for students receiving the proper intervention programs consistently for approximately 16 weeks. The concern still lies within the core instruction and the support provided by the general education teachers during WIN time to students who are at or above benchmark. A deeper data analysis for the Tier 1 students' scores indicates that there was growth and regression within Tier 1, but not significant enough for a shift to Tier 2 instructional supports. Tables 11-13 show the total cohort of students and the percentage of growth made within Tier 1 between the AIMSweb and Acadience fall and winter assessments, then winter and spring. It also shows the percentage of students that regressed during that same timeframe. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 91 Table 11 AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - R-CBM FALL to WINTER WINTER to SPRING TIER 1 GROWTH 247 students or 88.53% 275 students or 98.56% TIER 1 REGRESSION 32 students or 11.46% 4 students or 1.43% Table 12 AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - Maze FALL to WINTER WINTER to SPRING TIER 1 GROWTH 271 students or 97.13% 264 students or 94.62% TIER 1 REGRESSION 8 students or 2.86% 15 students or 5.37% After further analysis of specific growth within Tier 1 students, using the AIMSweb assessments, it appears that the majority of students are growing with the core instruction in place. Although there is a small percentage of students that have shown regression with the core instruction in a year. An interesting find indicated in Table 11 with the growth rate for the R- CBM assessment as opposed to the Maze growth indicated in Table 12. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 92 Table 13 Acadience Scores Within Tier 1 - ORF-Accuracy FALL to WINTER TIER 1 GROWTH 266 students or 95.34% TIER 1 REGRESSION 13 students or 4.65% Table 14 Acadience Scores Within Tier 1 - ORF Retell FALL to WINTER TIER 1 GROWTH 274 students or 98.20% TIER 1 REGRESSION 5 students or 1.84% In year two, with more experience delivering interventions and support to Tier 1 core instruction, there was less regression for students retelling and reading cold passages for accuracy, as indicated in Table 13. There is a similar percentage of students who had success with their retell, or comprehension skills, between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cohorts. The data presents questions related to the effectiveness of the core instructional materials and approach in place for second grade students. Introducing another data point into the analysis would provide insight into the teacher viewpoint of how effective the core programming, resources, and assessments are in their planning and delivery of instruction within a MTSS RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 93 framework. Of the twelve-second grade teachers and two reading specialists, eight teachers voluntarily provided input into the online survey. Of the twenty survey questions, ten were presented in a Likert-Scale model to rate the perceived effectiveness of the District’s MTSS framework and ten were open-ended responses allowing teachers to provide their input of the effectiveness of the MTSS framework. The ten Likert-Scale questions asked the participants to respond on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest rating for the question. Figure 7 displays the survey questions and a graph representing their responses. The responses were based upon a rating scale that listed 1-5 with 5 being the highest rating and 1 being the lowest rating Figure 7 Rating Scale Questions and Responses of Eight-Second Grade RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 94 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 95 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 96 The voluntary teacher responses to the survey provide an interesting sampling of perceptions as they pertain to the effectiveness of MTSS in the classroom for Tier 1 and via pull-out supports in Tiers 2 and 3. Some of the highlights of the data come with majority of the responders believing that the core reading materials provide an average amount of support to all students. A positive is that all teachers feel that WIN time has a high level of effectiveness for instructional support with all 8 responses at a 3 or above. One concerning data point is with the perception of time sufficiently provided to understand WIN or MTSS expectations for teachers, with a wide array of responses, where 3 teachers who felt they needed more support and 5 felt adequately supported. The varying responses is a concern that the messages and communication for expectations of WIN time are not clear or understood, possibly contributing to concerns exposed through the student data in Tier 1 core instruction. While teachers do believe that the materials are effective, 62.5% of the surveyed teachers feel that the materials dedicated to intervention and instruction are not helping students improve at each tier level. In addition to having the proper materials, the surveyed teachers were split almost evenly responding with scores of 3-5 for having the proper amount of planning time dedicated within the clusters RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 97 for WIN time. In addition to the planning time, teachers responded with the widest range of answers to believing that students are accurately placed in the appropriate tiers for instruction. A lingering question remains as to what would determine how students are placed higher or lower than classroom teachers expected? As an extension of the proper tier placement, again, the teachers provided a wide array of responses, rating 1-4 for the appropriate rate of movement between tiers. This particular question is reflected by the data stating that there is movement between the tiers based upon their success with the universal screener. As expected, some success is felt by the teachers who participated in the survey, with 87.5% of the teachers rating as a 3 or above. Although not one teacher believes WIN time is fully successful, it is encouraging to know that success is evident which will lead to continuous enhancements and success in the future. Even though MTSS is not perceived to be fully effective within its second year, 87.5% of the teachers responded with a rating of a 3 or 4 to acknowledge that students are benefitting from tiered instruction. From these scaled responses by eight-second grade teachers, it appears that there is a general feeling of success, with much work left to be accomplished. Teachers believe that the data sufficiently provides enough information regarding a students’ academic status, but they are looking for the ability to plan and implement more structured resources to assist the students’ needs moving forward. In the second part of the online voluntary survey, questions were posed in an open-ended format for the second grade teachers and reading specialists to provide a narrative of their perceptions based upon the questions asked. Table 8 outlines the open-ended responses from the voluntary survey. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 98 Figure 8 Open-ended response from voluntary second grade teacher survey 1 After one year of implementing WIN time, what instructional intervention do you feel has the greatest impact on student growth? Why? Trends Of the eight (8) responses, the common themes within the responses stated that smaller group instructional time, addition emphasis on fluency and comprehension instruction were the most reported strengths. In addition, three (3) of the eight responses stated that having reading specialists dedicated to delivering intervention programs had the greatest impact. Only one (1) person reported that the extra time and addition of the Heggerty program had impact on student growth. 2 Have your students shown more academic growth with WIN time compared to previous years without WIN? Explain why or why not. Trends Five (5) of the eight (8) responders reported that they have observed more academic growth with the implementation of WIN time than when they taught a traditional schedule in previous years. In addition, one (1) of the responders could not report since this was their first year teaching second grade. The remaining responses reported that they did not feel any change was evident with or without WIN time. 3 Trends 4 Trends 5 What has been most successful with WIN time? The most successful component with WIN time was reported to be the addition of the reading specialists and small group instruction that focused on particular skills students’ are struggling with as stated in their data. An interesting point made from one responder was that having the ability to work within their own classroom of students to provide interventions and support to their own students was most successful in the second year, after trying to switch for skill-based instruction during the first year of MTSS. What has been least successful with WIN time? There were varying perceptions shared for this response, but the emerging themes were surprising. Two (2) teachers reported that they felt that they were losing instructional time teaching core subjects due to WIN time, and that they did not feel that the reading specialists were servicing enough students with needs. Other similarities with responses were with the lack of time to plan, minimal instructional resources for comprehension and sporadic accessibility to technology tools. Do you feel you have enough data points to make proper instructional decisions according to students’ needs? Why or why not? RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction Trends 99 Overwhelmingly, there were seven (7) of the eight (8) participants who responded that they felt they had enough data points to make proper instructional decisions. One (1) outlier stated that they were hoping to have more information to glean from the data to dig deeper into the student’s needs. 6 What additional data would be beneficial in determining the best aligned intervention for your students? Trends Other than the assessments that they are currently using for WIN and other formative assessment data, the teacher participants did not feel as though they would need any additional data points. One (1) responder reported that they felt they had too much data to analyze and that there was too much testing. There were two (2) outlier responses that stated that more specific skill data would be useful in determining the accurate levels of instruction to support student need. 7 Do you feel the 2014 Wonders series AND Heggerty Phonics Awareness Curriculum provides you with the best instructional resources to address student reading needs for enrichment and remediation? Why or why not? Trends The responses were split for the participants. Three (3)of the eight (8) said that Wonders provided quality materials, five (5) did not. Of the five (5), the theme was that the materials were too challenging for the average or below average student, or that there were too many options to present to the students. There were four (4) responses regarding Heggerty’s impact as a split decision of two (2)agreeing and two (2) disagreeing of its impact on student academic gains. 8 Trends 9 Trends 10 What do you feel is missing in your core reading program? The common themes within these responses was that comprehension and writing were the most critical components missing from the core reading program. The participants did not feel that they had the proper amount of resources available through core or supplemental materials to provide appropriate instruction. As an outlier response, one (1) teacher reported that they felt fun was missing from their core program. What instructional planning and delivery changes do you make based upon your student data? Most responses stated that WIN time allows them to make the instructional planning and delivery changes to meet the needs of students and determine the method of instruction whether small group or whole group. Other responses indicated that enrichment, remediation, differentiation, comprehension and phonics were areas of instructional planning that are addressed based upon the data of individual and class data. What instructional changes do you need to make in Reading to see more academic growth with your students? RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction Trends 100 Time management, reading instructional time and small group instructional practices were the common themes within the responses. Inclusion of a strong writing program was reported, as well as having more professional development for MTSS, and having more aligned resources to select when trying to meet the needs of various learners. The open-ended responses shed light on interesting viewpoints of the teachers who voluntarily responded. There were definite trends within the responses, but they also did not provide explicit clarity to research question 3, what is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to reading achievement? The concerns seem to stem from a lack of time to plan with each other to properly group students into their tiers based upon the sufficient data that has been collected and analyzed. There is a general consensus that the 2014 Wonders series provides challenging materials to the at or above level students, but overall it does not provide enough resources to support the varying levels of student needs in second grade. WIN time is reported to be successful, but it would be safe to assume that there is not a complete level of comfort, with all of the teachers who responded as to how to effectively provide instructional interventions to students. The third data collection within this action research study was conducted through Fidelity Checks (Appendix B) of classroom instruction during the set WIN time. The Fidelity Checks were conducted during random times and days in visits to second grade classrooms where students were engaged in WIN time through tiered reading activities. In addition to Tier 1 classrooms, there were Tier 2 and 3 classrooms observed with reading specialists conducting the instructional interventions. During these random visits, by the researcher, to observe instruction, notes were recorded based upon the type of instruction occurring, materials used, and the method of RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 101 delivering instruction (whole-group, small-group or independent work). The purpose of the data was to determine the consistency of the instructional practices used during the set WIN time, and to correlate the addition time to academic growth for students with reading acquisition skills. Figure 9 Fidelity Checks - Instructional Groups September November January October December February 17% 12% 21% September November January 21% 20% 12% 18% Small-Group Instruction 29% October December February 29% 7% 14% Large-Group Instruction The graphs in Figure 9 represent the two different types of instruction observed during WIN time within the six months visiting small-group and large-group instruction. The percentages represent the cohort of 12 general classrooms in Tier as well as the reading specialists delivering Tier 2 and 3 interventions for a total of 14 classrooms visited each month. The percentages represent a cumulative score gleaned from the cohort Fidelity Checks. The graph on the right for large-group instruction in Figure 9 represents an inconsistent observation between instructional delivery presented to small-groups vs. large-groups. From the data, it appears that teachers are RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 102 continually providing consistent instructional support through a large-group model, which would counteract the effectiveness of providing content-specific intervention supports to students based upon their data. The Fidelity Checks were random visits into classrooms, at a 10-15 minute interval of time within the scheduled 30 minutes of WIN time. Therefore, instructional planning for the visit would not have been possible. A second observation through the Fidelity Checks was with the organization and delivery of instructional materials used for instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3. Figure 10 represents the use of the core reading Wonders series, and intervention resources, or worksheet-type materials used over the course of the six Fidelity Checks within the fourteen classroom settings. Figure 10 Fidelity Checks - Organization and Delivery of Materials Wonders Heggerty Worksheets Other 12 9 6 3 0 September October November December January February The data represents a strong usage of the Wonders reading series during WIN RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 103 time. While this represents consistency amongst the teachers, it also shows minimal variance in the instructional support that students may need based upon what the data represents. The rare usage of Heggerty in the classrooms during WIN time is another surprising factor being that it is a supplemental component that was requested for purchase by the teachers as a needed intervention resource due to the skills lacking in the area of phonemic awareness. In Figures 9 and 10, the correlation to the use of Wonders and the large-group instructional model remains consistent with the theory that teachers have remained continually committed to their traditional approach to text-book based instruction as it is designed to be implemented through a core reading program. Although this data sheds light on patterns of instruction occurring during WIN time during random classroom visits over a six-month period of time, it does not fully present an accurate answer to the research question, are instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students. Discussion All three data points represent the response to the MTSS framework in place at the second grade level after two years of implementation. There is a correlation between each of the data methods where they are specifically targeting a triangulation between instructional methods, materials and student achievement based upon foundational reading skills. The Universal Screening tools, AIMSweb and Acadience Reading represent the achievement of cohort students in two highlighted areas of skill topics, R-CBM and Maze, or ORF-Accuracy and ORF-Fluency. The teacher survey responses provide a perception of opinions based upon the effectiveness of MTSS in RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 104 terms of instructional materials, data and success of WIN time. Finally, the Fidelity Checks portray glimpses of instructional consistency among teachers delivering the WIN time interventions and instruction to students based upon what they feel and believe to be appropriate for their individual needs. All three data points connect the larger focus of the effectiveness of enhanced core reading instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3 MTSS. Each data point helps in determining the overall effectiveness and aides in the creation of an action plan to enhance the current MTSS structure in the second grade. Without the student data, the results would not allow for a deeper understanding of the causes of student movement between tiers based upon their response to the interventions and core programs in place. The teacher input provides a perception of the daily performance, planning and thought process behind making a shift from traditional whole-group instruction to more student-based, data-driven small-group instruction to support specific needs. The Fidelity Checks connect the final data component to determine what the process looks like in the classroom and provides insight into systematic changes that could be made in the future. Summary In a MTSS Framework, there are several key components to review to determine its overall effectiveness for student academic growth. Data collection and analysis is the driving factor to making informed instructional decisions based upon student improvement and regression. Identifying and aligning research-based interventions and instructional materials to the student’s needs is a driving factor RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 105 behind providing appropriate educational support. Understanding and developing a process for teachers to collaborate, analyze data, plan for instruction and deliver appropriate methods of interventions create a systematic approach to what multitiered system of supports can provide to all students. The primary goal of a fluid MTSS academic structure is for all students to find success and continuously receive support in closely aligned methods according to their needs. Through this analysis of data, it became evident that the critical components were mostly in place and being implemented with some level of fidelity, but there is still a disconnect with the full functionality and success of the MTSS process within the second grade team. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 106 CHAPTER V Conclusions and Recommendations The purpose of this research study was to determine how the effectiveness of enhancing core reading instruction would impact the movement of students receiving Tier 1, 2 and 3 instructional supports within the MTSS framework. As a newly implemented method of planning and delivering instruction, the second grade team of teachers implemented What I Need (WIN) instructional period, three times per week for 40instructional minutes. During that time, students were grouped according to what the reading data reflected as strengths and deficits in foundational reading skills. Teachers and reading specialists utilized a universal screening tool to make benchmark growth decisions as assessments were administered three times per year in September, January and May. Over the course of the initial two years of MTSS implementation, the second grade team utilized the same core reading program, McGraw Hill 2014 Wonders. After year one of MTSS and data analysis within the district, it was determined that more instruction was warranted in the areas of phonemic awareness. Therefore, mid-way through year one, teachers began to implement a supplemental phonics program, Heggerty, to enhance students’ foundational skills. With this change, the district’s second grade team was eager to see if the gap would close for students in their foundational reading skills. In addition to the core and supplemental programs in Tier 1, other explicit intervention programs were used in Tier 2 and 3 depending on the needs of the students as determined by the available data. Skills addressed were fluency, phonics, comprehension RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 107 and in some cases, writing. Programs used by the reading specialists were LLI and RaveO. Both programs are research-based and designed to address specific instructional needs for fluency and comprehension. During Tier 2 instruction, there were cases where the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness supplemental program was used to reinforce students’ skills as needed. Throughout the course of the year, teachers met on a regular basis as a team to discuss the data, progress and needs of students within their cohort. These discussions played an integral role in the planning and instructional delivery based upon the needs demonstrated by students from their response to the supports in place at their respective tiers. The focus of the action research was to determine how all of these components support growth of students between the tiers and where revisions to the framework would be needed for more successful student outcomes. Study Implications In this research study, outcomes were potentially impacted by several factors that presented themselves over the course of the data collection timeline. The data collected through AIMSweb and Acadience were from two different sets of student cohorts, as well as two different assessment tools. There are similarities with the assessment tools, as they both take a closer look at oral reading fluency skills and how many words can be read correctly in a cold read passage during a one-minute timeframe. The data does not reflect the same students, but rather the effect of the core and supplemental instruction provided to second grade students. Data determines if there was growth or direct correlation to the instruction in place. A more significant implication with the data collected was the incomplete RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 108 assessment data during 2019-2020 where the final spring benchmark assessment was not administered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and school closure. Growth over the course of a full school year could not be analyzed due to the missing data piece. There are twelve teachers that are assigned to working with second grade students in the elementary school including reading specialists. Of the twelve, eight provided responses to the voluntary online survey, which would eliminate a full picture of the grade level’s perceptions of MTSS. The responses provided were substantial enough to see trends and identified areas of strength and weakness. The final data component of Fidelity Checks were scheduled to be conducted randomly, each month, to all second grade classrooms during WIN time. These visits included the reading specialists for Tier 2 and 3. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fidelity Checks were only conducted 6 of the 9 months. This presented another gap in the data collection, but again, this did not have a direct impact on the overall results of the action research and recommendations. The data collected during the random Fidelity Checks provided a good glimpse into the planning and delivery of instruction in all second grade classrooms over the six month period to make a determination of effectiveness. Research Question 1 Q1: How does the benchmark data identify areas of strength or weakness per skill at each tier? A critical component of the MTSS framework is having data to make instructional decisions and place students in their appropriate levels of instruction. To effectively make RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 109 those decisions, data was collected using universal screening tools which are administered three times per year focusing on the same skill set with increasing benchmarks to indicate growth within a 1-year timeframe. The District used AIMSweb in year one of MTSS implementation. Due to the discontinued production of the assessment program in June 2019, the District took the advice of the MTSS researchers from Michigan and Pennsylvania, through their participation in a state-wide MTSS training cohort, and purchased Acadience Reading as the benchmark assessment tool to use during the 2019-2020 school year. Data teams were formed and a rotating schedule of meetings was integrated as part of the school day with teachers, reading specialists, school psychologists and other administrators. The teams analyzed data of the cohort students every eleventh day and made decisions to move students between tiers after at least six weeks of intervention support. The action research study focused on second grade, examining data from two year’s worth of benchmark assessments in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, which pulled from two different test administration tools. For the most consistent analysis in the data, the two major assessment components reviewed were R-CBM and Maze from AIMSweb and ORF Fluency and Accuracy from Acadience Reading. Once students were placed into their appropriate tier, instruction could be planned to meet their individual or small-group needs. During this time, a classroom may have upwards of 18-20 students who have varying levels of need even performing above benchmark. Recalling the data presented in Table 4 , students performed above benchmark with their oral reading fluency skills within a range of 52 to 162 words read RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 110 correct per minute. While all were considered above benchmark, this gap in ability presents a challenging instructional environment for a teacher planning for small-group instruction. A large, whole-group instructional method will not effectively reach each student, therefore leading to additional regression from students performing at the lower level of the above benchmark scores and risking a slide into needing Tier 2 supports. The same is true for the higher performing students who are not continually exposed to challenging reading materials when they may become stagnant in their growth, causing minimal gains in their oral reading fluency and accuracy in their universal screening data. After the introductory year of WIN time, the first cohort composite scores showed adequate movement and increase of skills with students who met benchmark or above. Tier 3 students made gains enough to transition to a Tier 2 intervention setting, but Tier 2 students appeared to slightly increase. The explanation of the Tier 2 increase could have been students responding to the intensive Tier 3 interventions and adding to the total number of Tier 2 students, but it also could mean that the Tier 2 students were not making significant progress to transition back into the Tier 1 core instruction. The composite growth rate exposed a potential concern with the Tier 2 level of interventions. From this finding, a question of intervention effectiveness was raised. Did the interventions meet the specific skill needs of all students in Tier 2, or were the interventions not fully meeting the level of fidelity needed to be successful for students? In year two, there were adjustments made within the MTSS structure, which included the addition of a phonemic awareness supplemental program, Heggerty, as well as a different approach to second grade WIN time where all Tier 1 students remained with RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 111 their homeroom teacher for interventions and instructional support instead of moving within the cluster for skill-based centers. The WIN time schedule still remained with 30minutes of interventions for reading three days a week. With these minimal adjustments, along with a new benchmark assessment tools, the composite growth between the beginning and mid-year assessment windows showed a much more dramatic movement than in year one as demonstrated with AIMSweb data. Again, there is a significant gap between the number of students who are in Tier 1, then are in Tier 2 ,with 74% in Tier 1 and 9% in Tier 2. These percentages are in alignment to the expectation set forth by MTSS guidelines of 80%, 15% and 5%, which present a perception that the curriculum and instruction is effective. Once the layers of data are pulled back, it is clear that the concern remains with the effectiveness of the core curriculum program in place and if they are providing a quality foundational skill level for students. According to the data reported in Acadience in Table 10, students appear to have the greatest strength and growth with their oral reading fluency skills which represent the largest movement of students from Tier 2 interventions into Tier 1 with 13.97% of students showing growth to score above benchmark between the fall and winter screenings. This growth is presumed to be contributed to the increased attention to the data and alignment of appropriate intervention tools at the Tier 2 level. A question remains as to how many more students would have this positive response to the interventions in place if WIN time was allotted for the suggested five days per week to implement the program with fidelity. The concern remains as to what is happening in Tier 1 where 13 students regressed with their core skills to be placed in Tier 2 interventions. The data indicates that the core program is not RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 112 providing a strong enough foundational program for each skill-set. Therefore the need exists for supplemental supports, or a newly designed program that addresses skill application in all fundamental areas of reading. Research Question 2 Q2: Are the interventions, resources, and tools in place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students? In addition to the benchmark assessments administered between 2018-2020, data was collected during 2019-2020 with a voluntary online survey of second grade teachers and reading specialists to provide insight to ten open-ended questions and ten rating scale questions. The survey provided insight into teacher perceptions of how effective MTSS is in their school or classroom. As a third data point, Fidelity Checks were conducted on a monthly basis during the assigned WIN period for all second grade classrooms. The classroom observations were conducted randomly, but during the same instructional period designed as WIN time, where students were receiving specific instruction based upon their tier and pertinent data. As data was collected between 2018-2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the final benchmark assessment was not administered and Fidelity Checks from March to May were not conducted due to the school closure. This insufficient data collection did not impact the research study significantly, yet it will not provide a final determination of growth or regression of students after a full year of implementing interventions and providing core instructional support to students at each tier level. While teachers are in their second year of implementation, there still seems to be RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 113 a disconnect and lack of fully understanding the purpose and value of MTSS implementation. Through the survey results, it was evident that some teachers felt that the additional instructional period was taking away from other subject areas or eliminating time from their ability to teach students other content. There does not seem to be a unified understanding of the value of the dedicated time to support individual, or small-groups of students based upon their available data to provide instruction that is aligned specifically to their needs. Through that explicit instruction, at any tier, students will be able to make gains to close any existing gap and place them on track to be successful moving forward through other grade levels. Dedicated time to focus specifically on these targeted areas with students should occur five days a week with fidelity for success to be observed on a more consistent basis with faster results. Having three days dedicated is a positive, however, the district would need to plan a schedule to allot for more flexibility within their schedule to allow for WIN time to occur as a defined component of their day, rather than an additional sporadic times per week. Increasing the WIN time periods from three to four days a week would potentially create a need for more reading specialists or interventionists to provide supports to more classrooms. It would also create a need for more specific intervention programs and resources for teachers to utilize during that time. These resources could be research-based programs in either a paper-pencil or online format. Explicit intervention programs are taught with fidelity to the model during the Tier 2 and 3 instructional times. As stated by the intervention’s guidelines for success, the programs are designed to be taught for a set amount of minutes per day, per week to show RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 114 the most effective results. Most intervention programs state their program goals to be thirty minutes per day, five days per week. In the current configuration of WIN time, the reading specialist’s schedule is not conducive to providing the most effective implementation of the intervention programs. While they are implementing their program with fidelity, the results will naturally be skewed due to the limited time available to successfully implement the intervention. With the program designed to provide 180 days of instruction or 5,400 hours of intensive intervention support, the district is only capable of providing 108 days of instruction with 3,240 hours of support. With this limited time, students in Tier 2 and 3 are put at a disadvantage toward their maximum opportunity for growth. Fidelity Checks conducted on a monthly, random basis allowed for observations to occur as a third data point. The items observed ranged from the instructional tools to the instructional method. The goal of the Fidelity Check was to determine if there was a pattern of how instruction was planned and delivered during Tier 1, 2 and 3 classrooms during the scheduled WIN time for reading. In most cases, the classroom visits proved that teachers still heavily relied upon the use of their textbook series in a large-group instructional format. As some classrooms adopted the concept of center-based teaching with students in small-groups, it was not apparent through the monthly visits if this method was effective for the students participating in the small-groups. Additional data, specifying which students were a part of the small-groups as compared to their available benchmark data, would provide a clear indication if the instructional methods were effective or not. That type of data was not collected, but would be a suggested format for RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 115 the district to entertain in the future if looking to make more significant changes and provide opportunities for student growth during WIN time. Another potential fiscal implication would be to assign a dedicated staff member to data analysis. This position could be building-specific, or district-specific. It may not necessarily indicate a need for a new hire, but to reassign the task to an existing staff member to analyze student data to make larger-scale instructional changes for the district. The composite of data analyzed for this research study demonstrates that the overall assumption is the district has many tools in place, but there does not seem to be a unified understanding of the most effective way to plan and deliver interventions at the Tier 1 level, or how to present a stronger core reading program that would provide a solid foundation of reading skills for all students. It would be prudent to review the reading curriculum, the resources and materials available, provide professional development specific to appropriate instructional strategies to support WIN time, and to review the master schedule to allow for more intervention time to be allotted each day. There is not a dire need to revamp the entire MTSS framework, but there is a need to solidify the elements in place to enhance what is currently effective. Research Question 3 Q3: What is the largest area of concern with skill acquisition in reading that is addressed at each tier? Based upon the data collected and analyzed from the voluntary survey, teachers reported that the core reading program provided sufficient materials to teach the foundational reading concepts, with some even stating that the materials were too RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 116 advanced for the students. The teachers provided responses that led to the belief that what they had, in terms of core materials, were sufficient tools for teaching, even providing too many options to choose. With that in mind, the teachers also reported that they felt they needed more materials and resources to effectively teach some foundational skills such as phonics, writing and comprehension. In terms of data being available to make sound instructional decisions for each child, each survey participant stated that there was enough data to make decisions. The information provided through the open-ended responses allowed the researcher to understand the mindset of the teachers who are providing the direct instruction and intervention to all second grade students. The responses also provided additional questions as to whether or not the implementation of MTSS was fully understood and a priority for the teachers. The responses were thoughtful and thorough, yet provided some concern as to how effective the two year MTSS framework was adequately providing foundational instruction and support to students where needed. There seemed to be limited adjustments made to the Tier 1 teaching day, with some responders stating that WIN time was taking away from instruction in other content areas. That particular response led the researcher to believe that the staff did not have a solid understanding of the value of MTSS, and providing explicit instruction to students in specific areas of need. The MTSS framework is in the second year of implementation. Prior to tiering instruction, students were receiving core instruction in a traditional instructional format based upon the guidelines set forth by a reading anthology and worksheets created by McGraw Hill Wonders. Although there is a differentiated component included in the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 117 Wonders reading series, teachers did not utilize those resources within their instructional day. The materials were available for the special education teachers to provide instruction to students with identified learning needs in reading. The problem identified through the action research was to determine if enhancing the core instruction would support the movement of students between Tier 1, 2 and 3. The core program alone does not support total skill acquisition for all students at an appropriate level of growth. Although the percentage of students not meeting benchmark is low, it has remained consistent over the past two school years and cohorts of second grade students. The MTSS process relies upon data analysis to determine appropriate student placement, but in this research it is hard to make a determination of the effectiveness of the assessment tool when over the two years, there were two different screening tools used. While the data represents more growth in year two, there are two factors that could play a role in that increase. First, it could be the composition of students and their level of academic foundation coming into second grade. Secondly, the testing components could provide different results. The assessment data does allow for the most significant interpretation of the effectiveness of instructional practices and interventions and how the student cohorts responded in year one as compared to year two. The results of the survey provided insight into the newly implemented MTSS framework. The responses were candid and voluntarily provided through an online survey template. In the ten open-ended questions, it allowed for the respondents to give more information based upon their perception and beliefs. While some of their responses coincided with information already known, it was interesting to find that despite the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 118 initial groundwork, there were still some obvious gaps and misunderstandings of the importance of providing interventions to students. These perceptions, provided by eight of twelve-second grade teachers and reading specialists, would lead the researcher to believe that the professional development needs are critical to move forward with any potential success with the framework. Research Conclusions The overall findings indicate that there is some level of success over the first two years of MTSS implementation. There are small groups of students within the second grade cohort that were provided with effective interventions resulting in positive growth and movement from Tier 2 to Tier1. Even though there was an indication of positive movement, it is still undetermined that it was directly a result of the interventions in place or the foundational skills built from prior years of instruction. There is evidence that the year two implementation of MTSS was more successful than the first, but there is insufficient data to represent the total growth over the course of a second grade instructional year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and closure of schools in March 2020. The conclusions are in direct correlation to the results outlined from the available data sources. MTSS is an effective use of instructional time for students to receive additional reading foundational supports outside of the core instructional period. Students receiving intensive research-based interventions showed the most significant improvement, and had the ability to shift to Tier 1, meaning they were no longer in need of receiving specific interventions for skills. The undetermined aspect of the research RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 119 study was if the core reading program was sufficient in providing a strong core for reading skills. The benchmark data was fairly similar to the expectations outlined in the MTSS framework, where nearly 80% of students assessed at benchmark during the three assessment windows in both years. While this may seem like a success, the concern lies with the larger amount of students who are assessing at below benchmark, and not finding success with the interventions in place. Throughout the research process, it became evident that the MTSS framework had minimal success in its early stages of implementation. There was an obvious disconnect between the district’s expectation of the program and teachers’ understanding of its importance. Teachers shared that they felt as though they needed more support and resources to be successful. Beyond those identified needs, it is apparent through the fidelity checks that there was a discrepancy between how they perceived WIN time to be implemented compared to how they were implementing the intervention supports to their students in Tier 1. Teachers in the core tier could benefit from learning more about effective grouping strategies, integrating skill support for students based upon their data and conducting formative assessments during WIN time to continually assess student progress with skill acquisition. Tier 2 teachers seemed to have a better understanding of the framework and found the implementation of explicit interventions to be more successful in year two as the data suggested more significant movement between the testing windows. The information known after the research study concluded will be used to continually enhance the MTSS framework within the district. The information will be a baseline for teachers to see how data analysis can make a bigger impact on instructional RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 120 and programmatic decisions by digging deeper into each category to determine its overall effectiveness. For the district to build upon the growth found between year one and year two, a more specific focus will need to occur with the teachers. Research-based interventions will need to be evaluated and purchased to support students to fill in the existing gaps of instruction at the core level. Continued fidelity checks will need to occur to expand upon the support of the teachers and growth of the MTSS framework. Additional staffing should be in place to support the significant needs of students not finding success attaining the core reading foundational skills within the grade level. Growth rates for students meeting benchmark during each assessment will require a closer look at the available data and then aligning the appropriate resources to support student need. These interventions must occur at each tier level, and then be a part of the data-team discussions when the grade level clusters meet as a team on the eleven day rotation. Teachers will need to fully understand the assessment tool, what the data represents in each assessed category, as well as how to analyze student data. There will also need to be an understanding of what the benchmarks are, and provide instructional supports to students to have repeated practice and exposure to a variety of text to increase their ability for growth between each assessment window. Progress monitoring is another critical component of knowing what the projected improvement rates are, where students are struggling and how to provide adjustments to instruction when a gap presents itself. Financial Implications As a response to the action research findings, there is great probability that there RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 121 will be significant financial implications if the district chooses to invest in strengthening the MTSS supports. Although the study focused on grade two, the MTSS framework encompasses Kindergarten through sixth grade in this specific district. The amount of supports across the grade level varies, therefore will require more consistent support of both human resources and instructional resources to be completely successful. There are a few different components that will need to be addressed within the MTSS framework and WIN time to allow for all students to have the supports needed to be successful and experience growth at an acceptable rate. Costs associated with the improvements will encompass professional development services for teachers for a deeper understanding of instructional practices, data analysis, interventions and determining plans for students to be placed in their appropriate tier. In addition to training in understanding the systemic process, new interventions materials will need to be purchased, thus requiring training for proper implementation and fidelity of the tool. As part of purchasing new research-based intervention tools to meet the needs of the students, it would be prudent for the district to consider hiring additional reading specialists to support the Tier 2 and 3 intervention needs 5 days per week. The elementary school houses 750 students, and currently there are two reading specialists servicing students grades 2-4. The recommendation will be for one reading specialist to service each grade level, which will allow for more one-on-one support and include a potential for program expansion to provide classroom push-in support. As outlined in chapter three, to sustain an effective and successful system for RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 122 students there will need to be consistent supports available and implemented. The most effective implementation strategy is to have fidelity to the model in place, which means having the time built in to provide quality interventions to students according to what their level of need is based upon data. Scheduling a consistent period of time with 30-40 minutes of uninterrupted instruction will allow reteaching of core concepts previously taught, pre-teaching upcoming core concepts, providing intensive interventions through research-based intervention programs, or conducting progress monitoring to collect additional data points for adjustments in instruction per student. Within that daily WIN time, there should be instructional supports provided by reading specialists, special education teachers and any other available teachers to provide the explicit instruction for all students in smaller group settings. Ideally, one reading specialist will be assigned to each grade level to provide the maximum amount of supports in a pull-out and push-in model. Classroom teachers should be arranged in clusters, or groups, where they can collaborate with each other and plan for instruction. In some models, the classroom teachers within the cluster could provide skill-based instruction to rotating groups of students at various levels on a schedule pre-determined by the teacher team. This approach will allow for more teacher-student contact and support, rather than rotating small-groups of students held within their general classroom receiving supports from one teacher. To accomplish this model, the staffing and scheduling need to be conducive to the framework’s goals. Additionally, resources that are research-based and allow for students to apply their skills in practice will be the final layer of support needed to have a successful RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 123 framework. The types of resources would be determined by the team of teachers and reading specialists to create a library of aligned and relevant materials to aide in the application and practice of reading foundational skills. Teachers should have access to quality classroom libraries that are full of literature of varied levels and genres. Students should have access to a variety of texts to increase their fluency and comprehension skills through independent practice. WIN time would be most successful if teachers had the accessibility to technology tools to be used in a center-style setting for students to access formative assessment tools online as part of their WIN time center. All of these components would lead to a more comprehensive program. Reflective Planning Reflecting upon the initial implementation of MTSS within the district, there was a lack of buy-in at the administrative and teacher level in some cases as well as minimal professional development shared with teachers prior to providing instruction in a 3-tiered intervention model. The district’s immediate need to establish the MTSS framework was driven by the results and concerns associated with the special education audit that reported deficits in several areas of instructional support. The rushed nature of beginning a systemic initiative created a culture of uncertainty, and these components potentially compounded the ability to establish critical aspects of WIN time, data-teaming and analysis, as well as to successfully report academic growth with students. After identifying this potential root cause, a more targeted approach to planning and communicating expectations with the administrators and staff occurred between the first and second year of MTSS. Thus, potentially resulting in more effectively aligned and RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 124 implemented interventions and support for students based upon their individual needs resulting in greater academic growth, as indicated by the data. As part of the district stance toward MTSS implementation, budgetary restrictions imposed hurdles to overcome with regard to properly staffing supports in all buildings with reading specialists and contributing to the purchase of aligned resources and materials. As part of the MTSS professional development cohort with PDE, the district chose to purchase ECRI as a supplemental instructional support to enhance the core instruction. Through the grant participation, half of the supplemental materials were provided, but the professional training piece critical to successful use was not able to be funded by the district. The lack of available funding, and inability to secure training inhibited the district from utilizing the instructional practice enhancements designed to strengthen the core reading instruction at Tier 1, therefore impeding the growth of students with foundational reading skills. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in March 2020, and its subsequent school closures, the research study faced minimal disruptions resulting in two restricted data points. First, the monthly Fidelity Checks were only completed during September through February collecting only 6 of the projected 9 observations. Secondly, the spring benchmark assessment was not conducted utilizing the Acadience Reading tool, which eliminated the ability to analyze a full-year’s growth for the second grade students during the 2019-2020 school year. Having a seamless flow of instruction, both small-group and independent, will allow for more specific instructional needs to be met and observed by the teacher. Beyond RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 125 the tangible components, there needs to be district-level and building level administrative support for the framework to be successful and sustainable. A commitment to student growth and success in each tier, grade level and content area, it is critical to the long-term success of MTSS. The research provided an insight into the beginning stages of a largescale systemic initiative based upon an identified need of a lack of instructional support. There are many successes with the framework in its second year, but with the lack of consistency and fidelity the framework’s purpose is concerning for its future development and progress. To gain a full understanding of the district’s implementation, it would be suggested to conduct a similar level of research in each of the grade levels K-6. The expanded data analysis will provide a broader scope of program effectiveness to make more significant district-level decisions. The expansion of research will contribute to the fiscal implications and would identify the specific areas of need per building and grade level to effectively implement MTSS. Implications for Future Research The research focused solely on second grade reading skills, but MTSS also includes math and behavior components. A fully supportive tiered intervention system works in conjunction with each other to determine how the academic needs play a role in the behavior of students and vice versa. Additional areas of investigation would be to determine the relationship between displayed behaviors and students receiving Tier 2 and 3 academic interventions. Do the behaviors supersede the academic needs and present an escape from a lack of understanding or skill-set, or do the academic needs present a level of frustration for the student that creates behavior disruption? When addressing the RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 126 behavior and academic pieces, it is important to note that students will not be able to fully focus on new instruction when the behaviors present a barrier to their success. Another area to address would be the impact of instructional methods within Tier 1. Are heterogenous classroom groupings the best approach to providing Tier 1 supports? Would it be more effective to have groups of homogenous groups, based upon their academic data and needs, rotating through the cluster teachers to receive focused instruction based upon skills? How much teacher-student interaction in a direct instruction format is needed for growth to occur? Implications for Practice As evident through the data collected, it was concluded that there was positive growth made with students receiving intensive interventions in Tier 2 and 3 with three days of interventions from a scripted research-based program. A future research question would be to determine if there is significant change in the growth of students when a Tier 2 or 3 scripted, research-based intervention is implemented for five days with fidelity? The biggest impact of having five days of intervention time, compared to three days, will drastically impact students falling within Tier 2 and 3. With the district performing close to the recommended MTSS framework of 80% in Tier 1, 15% in Tier 2 and 5% in Tier 3, increasing and sustaining amount of students in Tier 1 closer to the 90% threshold could occur due to the increased instructional support time. Adding a reading specialist per grade will level impact the student growth rate for reading foundational skills due to the extra time dedicated to providing supports to students in a pull-out and push-in model. The additional position will positively impact RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 127 the sustainability of MTSS within the school. The reading specialist will be able to provide teachers with data, instructional resources and intervention support in a coaching model. The addition of professional development supports and resources will allow for a deeper appreciation of the purpose of MTSS. As a determining factor of value, teachers and administrators need to look at a year with two reading specialists for three grade levels, compared to a year with three for three grade levels, and determine if there are significant signs of improvement in program fidelity and student success. The research skimmed the topic of the effectiveness of the Wonders reading series. It was implemented as a core component and tool used for instruction at Tier 1. The question remains if the program provides a comprehensive instructional approach to foundational skills for students. Is the integration of Heggerty making the difference with the increase in assessment scores between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, or was the increase due to it being the second year of implementation, different cohort of students, or change in benchmark assessment? Heggerty supplemental program provides an overlay to Wonders, and the curriculum should be revised to address the gaps left open by a complete packaged series to determine where the adjustments would be best applied. The district should revisit the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) supplemental program, not fully purchased by the District. ECRI provides the instructional overlay of resources to infuse more instructional support to core reading instruction, and that program may be the instructional resource needed to strengthen the core. Summary In conclusion, having a strong core foundation for reading is critical to the future RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 128 growth and success of students throughout the elementary grades. Second grade is a critical turning point where students fine tune their early literacy skills and begin applying them in context through literature. When students fall behind in their skill acquisition, the gaps begin to emerge. Without a structured approach to catching students before the gap becomes too wide, students are at-risk of a continued downward spiral of regression and academic struggle. Establishing a strong program to support students based upon data, tiered instruction and specific skill-based interventions will allow for students to receive the appropriate academic attention. The MTSS framework was created with a support system in mind. To fully implement with success and fidelity, core components must be in place to ensure success for all students. Having an assessment tool in place where teachers can analyze the data at least three times a year to make informed instructional decisions is at the root of the MTSS structure. Beyond the data, there is a significant need for teachers to have time to collaborate, plan, analyze data, implement materials and resources to support learning and monitoring the progress of students in between benchmark screenings. All components play a critical role in the programmatic success. Without one of these items, the framework is at risk of failing students. Through this research process, it became evident that in this district, most of the components are in place, yet there is room to continually improve all areas. The research will be a vehicle to start conversations of where the success and areas of need exist. The primary goal and focus should always remain on the academic success of all students, and developing programs that will provide the most appropriate levels of instructional growth and progress for all. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 129 References Anderson, R. C. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading [Pdf]. Washington, D.C.: National Inst. of Education. Bianco, S. D. (2010, June). Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and fidelity of implementation in a response to intervention (RtI) model. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(5), 2-11. Retrieved from https:// pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9932/899e796a1fe495de25a38f67bfc6a427945c.pdf Bulat, J., Dubeck, M., Green, P., Harden, K., Henny, C., Mattos,…Sitabkhan, Y. (2017). What works in early grade literary instruction (knowledge and practice in international development, 1). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. doi:10.3768/rtipress.2017.op0039.1702 Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., & Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 289-321.doi:10.1080/19345747.2010.539297 Coughlin, C., Sorrelle, P., Harms, A., Russell, C., Huth, E., & LeVesseur, C. (2015). Using Curriculum-based measures to predict reading test scores on the Michigan educational assessment program: technical report. Michigan Department of Education, Michigan’s integrated behavior and learning support initiative. Retrieved from https://miblsi.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Research/ Evaluation/MIBLSI%20Reading%20CBMMEAP%20Research%20Technical%20Report%20FINAL.pdf RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 130 Duke, N. K., & Block, M. K. (2012). Improving reading in the primary grades. Future of Children, 22(2), 55-72. Retrieved from https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/ sites/futureofchildren/files/media/literacy_challenges_for_the_twentyfirst_century_22_02_fulljournal.pdf Duke, N. K., & Messmer, H. E. (2019). Phonics Faux Pas: Avoiding Instructional Missteps in Teaching Letter-Sound Relationships. [PDF]. American Educator. Engaging Small-Group Literacy Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:// www.voyagersopris.com/literacy/rave-o/overview Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., & Dombek, J. (2018, January 17). The relative impact of aligning tier 2 intervention materials with classroom core reading materials in grads k-2 [PDF]. The Elementary School Journal. Foorman, B., Herrera, S., Dombek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Petscher, Y. (2017). The relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades k-2. (REL 2017-251). 1-15. Washington, DC: Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Foorman, B. R., Smith, K. G., & Kosanovich, M. L. (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5. (REL 2017-219). 1-18. Washington, DC: Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 131 Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Future Ready PA Index. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://futurereadypa.org/ Ikeda, M., J., Neessen, E., & Witt, J. C. (2008). Best practices in universal screening. Best practices in school psychology, V, 1-13. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.joewitt.org/ Downloads/IkedaBPV60.pdf Johns Hopkins University Center for Research and Reform in Education. (n.d.). Wonders executive summary 2014-2015 quasi-experimental study. Retrieved from https:// s3.amazonaws.com/ecommerce-prod.mheducation.com/unitas/school/ explore/sites/west-virginia/wonders-reviewers-guide.pdf Kaminski, R. A., Good III, R. H., Smith-Powell, K. A., Stollar, S., Wallin, J., Aboott, M., & Wheeler, C. E. (2019). Position paper on use of acadience reading k-6 for student-level accountability decisions. Dynamic Measures Group. Retrieved from https://acadiencelearning.org Kosanovich, M., Ladinsky, K., Nelson, L., & Torgesen, J. (2007). Differentiated reading instruction: Small group alternative lesson structures for all students. Guidance Document for Florida “Reading First” Schools. Florida Center For Reading Research. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498777.pdf Krashen, S., (2002). Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction. Reading Instruction, 39(1), 32-42. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 132 Retrieved from http://sdkrashen.com/content/articles/ 2002_defending_whole_language.pdf Leveled Literacy Intervention Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:// www.fountasandpinnell.com/intervention/ McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RtI and PBIS. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Morin, M., Dorsey, A., Bell, C., & Welsh, A. (2013). Reed 601 reading program evaluation assignment: McGraw Hill reading wonders grade one. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search? client=safari&rls=en&q=REED+ 601+Reading+Program+Evaluation+Assignment:+ +McGraw+Hill+Reading+Wonders+Grade+One&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 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. Reports of the subgroups. (2) 1-45. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/ nrp/Documents/report.pdf AIMSweb. (2011). AIMSweb Default Cut Scores Explained [PDF]. Pearson Education, Inc. Quinn, D. M., & Kim, J. (2017). Scaffolding fidelity and adaptation in educational program implementation: Experimental evidence from a literacy intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1187-1217. doi: 10.3102/002831217717692 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 133 Roland, G. H., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (2018, October 15). Acadience Reading Assessment Manual [PDF]. Dynamic Measurements Group, Inc. Scharer, P. L. (2018). Responsive literacy: A comprehensive framework. New York, NY: Scholastic, Incorporated. Snyder, E., & Golightly, A. F. (2017). The effectiveness of a balanced approach to reading intervention in a second grade student: A case study. Education, 138(1), 53-67. Retrieved from https://www.projectinnovation.com/education.html Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Threetier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 239-253. https://doi.org 10.1177%2F10983007070090040601 Tackett, K. K., Roberts, G., Baker, S., & Scammacca, N., (2009). Implementing response to intervention: Practices and perspectives from five schools-frequently asked questions. Center on Instruction. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED521572.pdf Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Intensive reading interventions for struggling readers in early elementary school: A principal guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Corporation, Center on Instruction. United States Department of Education. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: response to intervention (RtI) and multi-tier intervention in the primary RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction grades. IES Practice Guide. NCEE, 2009-4045. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/ rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf Wolfe, M. (n.d.). Engaging small-group instruction fourth edition proven to increase reading achievement [Pdf]. Voyager Sopris Learning. 134 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction APPENDICES 135 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 136 Appendix A TO: Second Grade Classroom Teachers and Reading Specialists FR: Kara Eckert RE: Anonymous Survey of Second Grade Teachers for Doctoral Action Research – MTSS Implementation DISCLOSURE STATEMENT I, Kara Eckert, am conducting a study to investigate the reading achievement for students in second grade and its impact of enhancing core reading instruction in Tier 1, 2 and 3 Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). The research is part of my Doctoral Action Research Capstone Project and Defense. Through this research, you will be asked to voluntarily provide feedback two times (February 2020 and May 2020) to share your personal perception of the effectiveness of MTSS implementation in your classroom as it pertains to student growth, resources, and materials. You have been invited to voluntarily participate in the electronic survey due to your role as a teacher, and/or reading specialist, who works directly with second grade students. The survey will ask a series of questions related to the research topic pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of MTSS implementation for Reading using instructional tools, data analysis and instructional delivery methods. If you agree to participate, the survey responses will be collected electronically and will not include any participant identifying information. All responses will be kept in my possession as part of my research. Your responses will be used only for feedback directly associated to the research. There is no potential harm to those who volunteer to provide responses in the electronic survey as the data will be kept confidential. The potential benefits to you from volunteering your feedback in this study will allow for curriculum alignment and instructional changes to occur or improve the level of instructional support and planning for MTSS in second grade and other elementary grade levels. Your privacy is important, and I will protect all information I collect through this survey in a confidential manner. Data will be reported in a way that will not identify any individual. I plan to present the overall study results as part of the California University of Pennsylvania Doctoral Capstone Research requirement, and as a publication in an educational journal and/or periodical. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 137 You do not have to participate in the voluntary survey. If you do not wish to participate, you do not need to inform me, and I will not have a way of identifying who participated by their anonymous responses. If you have questions about this research project, please contact Mrs. Kara Eckert at 724-625-1518 ext. 1524 - keckert@marsk12.org, or California University of PA Assistant Professor, Dr. Mary Wolf at wolf@calu.edu. Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board and the Mars Area School Board. Effective September 1, 2019 with expiration date of July 31, 2020. RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction Appendix B 138 RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 139 Appendix C VOLUNTARY TEACHER SURVEY Please provide short answers to the following questions: Share your responses based upon your actual experiences as a 2nd grade teacher and/or reading specialist servicing 2nd grade students. 1. After one year of implementing WIN time, what instructional intervention do you feel has the greatest impact on student growth? Explain. 2. Have your students shown more academic growth with WIN time compared to previous years without WIN? Explain why or why not. 3. What has been most successful with WIN time? 4. What has been least successful with WIN time? 5. Do you feel you have enough data points to make proper instructional decisions according to students' needs? Why or why not? 6. What additional data would be beneficial in determining the best aligned intervention for your students? 7. Do you feel the 2014 Wonders series AND Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum provides you with the best instructional resources to address student reading needs for enrichment and remediation? Why or why not? 8. What do you feel is missing in your core reading program? 9. What instructional planning and delivery changes do you make based upon your student data? RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction 140 10. What instructional changes do you need to make in Reading to see more academic growth with your students? On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest), please rate the following statements: 11. Data tools provide enough detailed information to understand student reading needs? 12. Core reading materials are able to provide support to all students with success? 13. Is WIN an effective use of instructional support time for students at Tier 1, 2 and/or 3? 14. Is sufficient time provided to understand WIN or MTSS expectations as a teacher? 15. Are the academic supports and resources effectively helping students improve at Tier 1, 2 and/or 3? 16. Is instructional planning for Tier 1 revolved around individual student needs? 17. Are the students accurately placed in Tiers to receive the intervention supports they need based upon the available data? 18. Are students moving between Tiers at an appropriate rate? 19. Is WIN time successful? 20. Are students benefitting from Tiered instruction?