what the research says

Compare student data to state (not local) norms

…in conceptualizing the cut score against which a given student’s performance should be compared, it can be argued that the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (2006) gives clear direction:

"The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards…. (§300.309[a][1])"

This provision indicates that the benchmark against which a student’s deficiency is determined should be the student’s performance in relation to the state (not local) standards.

Kovaleski, J. (2007). Response to Intervention: Considerations for Research and Systems Change. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), p.638-646.

Differentiated Instruction: Fine, but what to do with the rest of the class?

…use of reading groups creates a problem; when the teacher is working with one reading group, the other students in the class must be occupied with activities they can complete with minimal teacher direction. Research on these follow-up activities, or unsupervised seatwork, indicates that they are often of poor quality, are rarely taken seriously by teachers or students, and are poorly integrated with other reading activities (e.g., Beck, McKeown, McCaslin, & Burkes, 1979; Osborn, 1984), and that student time on-task during follow-up periods is typically low (e.g., Anderson, Brubaker, Alleman-Brooks, & Duffy, 1985). Yet in a class with three reading groups, as much as two thirds of the reading period is spent on follow-up activities.

Stevens, R.J., Madden, N.A, Slavin, R.E, & Farnish, A.M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two Field Experiments. Reading Research Quarterly. 22 (4) p. 433-454.

Can school systems provide the intervention resources students need?

Although early intervention using evidence-based practices may be widely promoted, implementation in real classrooms and schools is challenging (Abbott, Greenwood, Buzhardt, & Tapia, 2006; Fixen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Challenges center on pedagogy, resources, and changing systems to support early reading intervention, particularly in kindergarten through second grade.”

Kamps, D., Abbott,D., Greenwood, C., Wills, H. et al. (2008). Effects of Small-Group Reading Instruction and Curriculum Differences for Students Most at Risk in Kindergarten: Two- Year Results for Secondary- and Tertiary- Level Interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities,  41 (2) p.101- 114.

Small group interventions 15 to 30 minutes long get greatest effects

In a meta-analysis examining the role of time (both frequency and duration) on the effectiveness of kindergarten interventions, Cavanaugh et al. (2004) documented the great variability of intensity of time in effective interventions. In terms of intensity of time implementation, three of the five interventions that were implemented for fewer than 15 minutes per instructional session resulted in large effect sizes, 1.0 or higher. The majority of interventions were implemented from 15 to 29 minutes (n = 17) and had moderate to large effect sizes. The authors concluded that interventions delivered in small-group formats either two to three times per week or daily for a minimum of 15 to 30 minutes produced the greatest effects.

Harn, B.A., Linan-Thompson, S., Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying Instruction: Does Additional Instructional Time Make a Difference for the Most At-Risk First Graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 (2) p.115-125.

Small groups of 3-5 are as effective as 1-to-1 instruction

Although not conclusive for making individual student-level decisions, there is compelling research indicating that instruction provided to groups of 3 to 5 students is as effective as 1-to-1 instruction, even for the most at-risk students (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000).

Harn, B.A., Linan-Thompson, S., Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying Instruction: Does Additional Instructional Time Make a Difference for the Most At-Risk First Graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 (2) p.115-125.