Appendix B MTSS-R Interventionist Survey

MTSS-R

Interventionist Survey

Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX-XXXX. The time required to complete this voluntary information collection is estimated to average 40 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202–4537. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: 550 12th street, SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Dear Interventionist:

The Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading in Early Elementary School (the MTSS-R Study) is a groundbreaking national study designed to test two promising strategies to improve reading outcomes for students. Your participation is voluntary, but your response is critical for producing valid and reliable data. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer; however, we hope that you answer as many questions as you can. Below are the answers to some general questions concerning your participation.

What is the purpose of this survey?

The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about the trainings and supports school staff have received on MTSS-R practices, school- and classroom-level practices related to reading instruction, and background information on the staff participating.

Who is conducting this survey?

The MTSS-R Study was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. The study is being run by American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the study survey is administered by School Readiness Consulting (SRC). This study is authorized in Section 664 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108- 446) and Part A Section 8601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Why should you participate in this survey?

Policymakers and educational leaders rely on findings from studies like this to inform their decisions on approaches to reading instruction and supports for students in elementary school. The current project will fill a critical gap in the research on the effects of rigorous training and supports for MTSS-R on teacher practices and student outcomes.

Will your responses be kept confidential?

Yes. Your responses are protected from disclosure per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183. The study team will present the information collected as part of this study in an aggregate form and will not associate responses to any of the people who participate. We will not provide information that identifies you, your school, or your district to anyone outside the study team except as required by law. Your responses will be used only for statistical purposes. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, without the informed consent of the respondent, is a class E felony.

What are the risks to participation?

Participation in the teacher survey does not pose any special risks to you as a respondent other than accidental disclosure of information. AIR and SRC have safeguards in place to ensure respondents’ confidentiality, including restricted access to survey data and separating identifying information such as teacher and school names from survey responses. All study team members sign a confidentiality pledge, and all staff with access to identifiable study data have received clearance from the U.S. Department of Education and are subject to severe legal consequences for any breach of confidentiality. Any data that identifies you will be destroyed at the end of the study. If you have any questions about your rights as a research volunteer, contact AIR’s IRB at [email protected]; call 1-800-634-0797 (toll free); or write to AIR, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, and reference IRB number 87773.

How will your information be reported?

The information you provide will be combined with the information provided by other teachers in statistical reports. No individual data that link your name or e-mail address with your responses will be included in the statistical reports.

Thank you for your cooperation in this very important effort!

Current Position

1. Please indicate if you currently provide reading supports to 1^st or 2^nd grade students identified for being at risk for reading difficulty, sometimes referred to as Tier II reading intervention?

Select all that apply.

• Yes, to 1^st grade students

• Yes, to 2^nd grade students

• No  End survey

2. How would you classify your position at THIS school; that is, the activity at which you spend most of your time during THIS school year?

Please select one.

• Regular full-time teacher

• Regular part-time teacher

• Para-professional

• Reading coach or reading specialist

• Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading (MTSS-R) or Response to Intervention (RTI) for Reading Coordinator

• Student teacher

• Teacher aide

• Administrator (e.g., principal, assistant principal)

• Other, specify: __________________________

Education and Background

3. [Years of Experience Teaching] Including the current year, how many years of experience do you have doing each of the following?

Include the current year.

Record whole years, not fractions or months.

a.	Working as a regular full- or part-time teacher in any elementary school grade			Years
b.	Working as a regular full- or part-time teacher in 1st or 2nd grades			Years
c.	Working as a reading coach or a reading specialist			Years
d.	Providing Tier II reading intervention to students in any elementary school grade			Years
e.	Providing Tier II reading intervention to students in 1st or 2nd grades			Years

4. Have you earned any of the following degrees, diplomas, or certificates?

	Degree	Earned
a.	Bachelor’s degree	 Yes  No
b.	Master’s degree	 Yes  No
c.	Educational specialist, professional diploma, or certificate of advanced graduate studies (at least one year beyond master’s level)	 Yes  No
d.	Doctorate or professional degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., J.D.)	 Yes  No

Professional Development Experiences

5. Did you participate in any professional development related to READING INSTRUCTION or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading (MTSS-R) relevant to 1^st or 2^nd grade students during the summer of 2021 or the 2021-22 school year?

Professional development activities may be virtual or in-person.

Please include workshops or sessions related to teaching, courses, and participation in professional learning communities.

Please do not consider time you spent working one-on-one with a reading or MTSS-R coach. The following section will cover coaching activities.

Select all that apply.

• I participated in professional development on early reading instruction

• I participated in professional development related to MTSS-R

• I participated in professional development, but it was not related to early reading instruction or MTSS-R

• I did not participate in any professional development

Respondents who did not participate in PD related to reading instruction or MTSS-R for 1^st or 2^nd grade students will skip to question 11.

6. How many hours did you spend on professional development related to READING INSTRUCTION or MTSS-R relevant to 1^st or 2^nd grade students during the SUMMER of 2021 and the 2021-22 SCHOOL YEAR?

For each activity, estimate the total number of hours you spent. Round up to the nearest whole hour.

Please include in-person or virtual professional development activities.

Please assume that 1 credit hour of college coursework equals 8 hours of professional development.

a.	Attending professional development workshop(s) or session(s) related to teaching					Hours
b.	Taking course(s) related to teaching, such as a college course that extended over several weeks (including courses that lead to micro-credentialing).					Hours
c.	Other (e.g., professional learning communities), please specify:					Hours

7. To what extent were the following reading topics covered in the professional development workshops or sessions noted above?

	Professional Development Topics	Not Covered at All	Covered to a Small Extent	Covered to a Moderate Extent	Covered to a Large Extent
a.	Teaching foundational reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, word study, fluency)	1	2	3	4
b.	Teaching vocabulary (e.g., meaning of words)	1	2	3	4
c.	Teaching reading comprehension	1	2	3	4

Only teachers who responded with 1 or more hours in question 6a will receive this question.

8. To what extent were the following reading topics covered in the professional development workshops or sessions noted above?

	Professional Development Topics	Not Covered at All	Covered to a Small Extent	Covered to a Moderate Extent	Covered to a Large Extent
a.	Strategies to increase the explicitness of instruction (e.g., breaking down complex skills into smaller units, teacher modeling and providing feedback, instructional routines).	1	2	3	4
b.	Using and interpreting assessment data to differentiate instruction for students with diverse needs (e.g., students with reading difficulties).	1	2	3	4
c.	Strategies to ensure that the content of the Tier II reading intervention is aligned with the content of the core reading instruction.	1	2	3	4
d.	Instructional strategies for students who are identified for special education services due to a learning disability in reading	1	2	3	4
e.	Instructional strategies for English learners	1	2	3	4

Only teachers who responded with 1 or more hours in question 6a will receive this question.

9. To what extent were the following reading topics covered in the professional development workshops or sessions noted above?

	Professional Development Topics	Not Covered at All	Covered to a Small Extent	Covered to a Moderate Extent	Covered to a Large Extent
a.	MTSS-R framework (e.g., information about the theory or approach to MTSS-R)	1	2	3	4
b.	Roles and responsibilities of MTSS-R teams (e.g., purpose, frequency)	1	2	3	4
c.	How to measure the fidelity of MTSS-R implementation	1	2	3	4
d.	How to interpret and use screening data to identify students for Tier II reading intervention	1	2	3	4
e.	How to choose the right level of support for students identified as needing Tier II reading intervention	1	2	3	4
f.	How to interpret and use progress monitoring data to understand if students receiving intervention are making adequate progress	1	2	3	4

Only teachers who responded with 1 or more hours in question 6a will receive this question.

MTSS-R Coaching During the 2021–22 School Year

10. DURING THE 2021-22 SCHOOL YEAR, did you meet with one or more reading or MTSS-R coaches (or reading specialists) to discuss your instruction or your students’ reading data?

• Yes

• No – skip to 17

11. DURING THE 2021-22 SCHOOL YEAR, how many different reading or MTSS-R coaches (or reading specialists) did you meet with to discuss your instruction or your students reading data?

I met with

literacy experts or coaches.

12. You mentioned you worked with XX reading or MTSS-R coaches (or reading specialists). Please select the option that best describes each of the XX literacy or MTSS-R coaches that you worked with this year.

Please do not include the same person more than once.

	Literacy or MTSS-R coach	Position (drop down menu)
a.	What best describes the first coach’s position?	O Reading coach, or reading specialist assigned by the district or school O The ECRI/CORE Partners coach(es) (Tx Only) O Other (specify): __________________________________
b.	What best describes the second coach’s position?	O Reading coach, or reading specialist assigned by the district or school O The ECRI/CORE Partners coach(es) (Tx Only) O Other (specify): __________________________________

13. For each reading or MTSS-R coach that you met with during the 2021–22 school year (either in-person or virtually) please indicate how many times you met, the average length of the meetings, and whether any of the discussions in the meetings were based, at least in part, on an observation of your instruction.

Literacy or MTSS-R coach	A. Approximately how many times did you meet (in person or virtually) with this coach.	B. On average, how long were the meetings?	C. Were any of these meetings based, at least in-part, on an observation of your instruction?
Reading coach, or reading specialist assigned by the district or school	____ meetings	_____ minutes	O Yes O No

Separate rows will show for each reading or MTSS-R coach selected in question 12.

14. Please indicate whether the READING COACH, OR READING SPECIALIST(s) ASSIGNED BY THE DISTRICT OR SCHOOL observed your instructional strategies, whether you received feedback on those strategies, and whether the coach modeled those instructional strategies for you.

		A. Coach reviewed my students’ data or observed my instruction	B. I received feedback on this area	C. Coach modeled this for me
a.	Procedures for administering the screening tool	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
b.	Procedures for administering the progress monitoring tool	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
c.	Instructional strategies for foundational skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, word study, fluency)	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
d.	Instructional strategies for vocabulary	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
e.	Instructional strategies for comprehension	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
f.	Strategies for making my instruction more explicit (e.g., breaking down complex skills into smaller units, teacher modeling and providing feedback, instructional routines)	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
g.	Strategies for differentiating my instruction	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
h.	Aligning Tier II reading intervention to Tier I instruction	N/A	O Yes O No	N/A
i.	How to implement the Tier II reading intervention with fidelity	N/A	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
j.	Ways of improving lesson planning (e.g., picking appropriate content, using supplemental resources	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
k.	Instructional strategies to increase student engagement	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
l.	Instructional strategies specific to students who receive special education services for a learning disability in reading	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
m.	Instructional strategies specific to English learners	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
n.	Other, specify: ________________	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No

Separate questions will show for each reading or MTSS-R coach selected in question 13.

15. Thinking across all of the coaching activities and feedback the reading/MTSS-R coach(es) have provided, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements:

		Disagree Strongly	Disagree Somewhat	Agree Somewhat	Agree Strongly
a.	The activities with my coach(es) were focused on areas of my teaching I could improve on.	1	2	3	4
b.	The coach(es) provided me with specific suggestions about how to improve my performance	1	2	3	4
c.	The feedback from the coach(es) was a fair assessment of my performance.	1	2	3	4
d.	The feedback from the coach(es) was easy to understand.	1	2	3	4
e.	Some of the feedback from the coach(es) conflicted (e.g., across coaches, overtime). with other feedback I received this year	1	2	3	4
f.	The activities with by coach(es) fit well within my schedule.	1	2	3	4

16. As a result of working with the reading/MTSS-R coaches:

		Disagree Strongly	Disagree Somewhat	Agree Somewhat	Agree Strongly
a.	I use data to identify students’ needs more frequently.	1	3	3	4
b.	I have changed the way I teach foundational reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, word study, fluency).	1	3	3	4
c.	I have changed the way I teach vocabulary skills.	1	3	3	4
d.	I have changed the way I comprehension skills.	1	3	3	4

Data Use Infrastructure: Teams

Many schools have teachers or groups of individuals that are in charge of planning and implementing the school’s approach to reading instruction and review 1^st or 2^nd grade data to identify or support students who are struggling with reading. These teams are often called MTSS-R TEAMS, MTSS-R LEADERSHIP TEAMS, or GRADE-LEVEL PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, however your school might use a different name. We’d like to learn a little about your participation in these teams and your role.

17. Approximately how many of these team* meetings did you attend during the 2021–22 school year so far?

*Please only consider teams/group of individuals that review 1st or 2nd grade student data to identify or support students who are struggling with reading.

I attended

data team meetings during the 2021–22 school year.

or

 Our school doesn’t have these teams

Conditional logic will be applied: teachers selecting 0 or “Our school doesn’t have these teams” will skip to question 19.

18. What role(s) do you play on these teams*?

*Please only consider teams/group of individuals that review 1st or 2nd grade student data to identify or support students who are struggling with reading.

Select all that apply.

• Team lead

• Note taker

• Grade-level teacher

• Interventionist

• Other, specify: ___________________________________

Data Use

19. Please indicate how often you reviewed each of the following data sources THIS year to inform your reading intervention.

		I do not have access to these data	I have not reviewed these data THIS year	A few times (1-5 times)	Nearly every month	A few times per month	Once or more per week
a.	Screening data for reading (e.g., AIMSweb, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), collected a few times per year)	0	1	2	3	4	5
b.	Progress Monitoring data for reading (e.g., AIMSweb or DIBELS, collected periodically, such as monthly, across the year)	0	1	2	3	4	5
c.	Diagnostic tests (e.g., the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (C-TOPP), Dyslexia Early Screening Test, second edition (DEST-2))	0	1	2	3	4	5
d.	Performance on teacher-administered assessments (e.g., end of unit tests, classroom quizzes)	0	1	2	3	4	5
e.	Performance on classwork or homework	0	1	2	3	4	5
f.	Behavior data (e.g., counselor reports, discipline)	0	1	2	3	4	5
g.	Attendance data (e.g., number or percent of days missed per student)	0	1	2	3	4	5
h.	Results obtained from a systematic review of student work (e.g., portfolio or other student work evaluated using a rubric)	0	1	2	3	4	5
i.	Other, please specify: ________________________	0	1	2	3	4	5

20. DURING THE 2021-22 SCHOOL YEAR, did you use your students’ latest PROGRESS MONITORING DATA in reading (e.g., AIMSweb, DIBELS) when doing each of the following?

Select all that apply.

• Identify individual students who need more intensive supports (e.g., Tier III supports) for reading

• Identify individual students who can exit Tier II reading intervention (i.e., who no longer need Tier II reading intervention)

• Diagnose learning problems

• Reassign students to different reading intervention groups

• Determine instructional materials to use during reading intervention

• Support a referral for special education

• Support a referral for English language services

• Change instructional approach for students in my intervention group(s) who receive special education services for a learning disability in reading (SWD)

• Change instructional approach for English learners (EL) in my intervention group(s)

• Change instructional approach for non SWD, non-EL students in my intervention group(s)

• Communicate the progress of students’ reading performance to parents

• Recommend tutoring or other educational services for students

Tier II Practices

21. When providing Tier II reading intervention to 1st and 2nd grade students THIS year at THIS school, how often do you do each of the following?
    
    

		Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always
a.	Pre-teach content that will be taught in the students’ class	1	2	3	4	5
b.	Re-teach content that was taught recently in the students’ class	1	2	3	4	5
c.	Follow a scope and sequence determined by the TIER II reading intervention	1	2	3	4	5
d.	Follow a lesson I developed to fit my students needs	1	2	3	4	5
e.	Assess student progress using assessment embedded in the Tier II reading intervention program	1	2	3	4	5
f.	Assess student progress monitoring using separate progress monitoring tools not embedded in the intervention program.	1	2	3	4	5
g.	Have students practice reading on a computer	1	2	3	4	5
h.	Engage students in choral response	1	2	3	4	5
i.	Provide multiple opportunities to respond	1	2	3	4	5

22. Approximately how many different groups of students do you provide Tier II reading intervention to, on days where you provide Tier II reading intervention?

If you meet with students one-on-one to provide Tier II reading intervention, please consider each one-on-one meeting to be a distinct group (i.e., groups of 1). Please do not include groups who are receiving intensive intervention (i.e., Tier III).

groups of students in a typical day

23. On average, how many students are there in each group?

If you provide one-on-one Tier II reading intervention (i.e., Tier II support) to students, please consider each one-on-one meeting as well (i.e., groups of 1). Please do not include groups who are receiving intensive intervention (i.e., Tier III).

On average, there are

students in a group

24. How many days per week do students you work with typically receive Tier II reading intervention?

 1 day

 2 days

 3 days

 4 days

 5 days

25. How long is a typical Tier II reading intervention session?

If you provide one-on-one Tier II reading intervention (i.e., Tier II support) to students, please consider each one-on-one meeting as well (i.e., groups of 1). Please do not include groups who are receiving intensive intervention (i.e., Tier III).

Minutes

26. Thinking across all of the students you’ve provided Tier II reading intervention to THIS YEAR, approximately what percent of students have…

		Percent of students
a.	Received Tier II reading intervention all year (i.e., since the first screening)					%
b.	Received intervention for 6+ months, but not all year					%
c.	Received intervention for 3-6 months					%
d.	Received intervention for 1-2 months					%
e.	Received intervention for less than 1 month					%

27. What are the main ways you or your school determine that the students no longer needed Tier II reading intervention?

Select all that apply.

• The student(s) met the end-of-year goal for the student

• The student(s) showed sufficient progress towards meeting the end-of-year benchmarks based on progress monitoring data

• The student(s) was no longer identified as at risk in the recent round(s) of screening

• The student(s) showed sufficient progress on assessments, such as program mastery data, that are part of your reading program

• The student(s) showed sufficient progress on classwork, homework, or teacher-administered assessments

• Classroom teacher recommendation(s)

• Parent request

• Other, specify:______________________________________________

Question will only be asked if 27a is less than 100%.

28. When you provided Tier II reading intervention to 1st and 2nd grade students THIS year, which program did you use?

Select all that apply.

ECRI Failure Free Reading Heggerty I-Ready Leveled Literacy Intervention System Lexia Lindamood-Bell MindPlay Phonics First Raz-Plus

Reading Mastery Responsive Reading SIPPS Sound Partners Smarty Ants Sonday System Stepping Stones to Literacy Wilson Reading Supplemental Tier II materials provided by my core reading program Other, Specify:________________

29. Please indicate how frequently you have met with personnel in your school in charge of organizing special education and English language services to students IN A TYPICAL MONTH this year to coordinate interventions that English learners and students with disabilities receive.

		I don’t work with these personnel	Less than once a month, on average	Once a month	Two or three times a month	Weekly	Two or more times a week
a.	Personnel in charge of special education services	0	1	2	3	4	5
b.	Personnel in change of English language services	0	1	2	3	4	5

30. Please indicate if you provide Tier II reading intervention to students in the following 1^st and 2^nd grade classrooms.

Select all that apply.

• Ms. Nyhof’s 1^st grade class

• Ms. Vaughn’s 1^st grade class

• Mr. Rickles’ 1^st grade class

• Ms. Gandhi’s 2^nd grade class

• Mr. Gersten’s 2^nd grade class

• Ms. Taylor’s 2^nd grade class

31. Please indicate how frequently you have met with each of the teachers listed below IN A TYPICAL MONTH this year to coordinate lesson content or reading strategies across classrooms and Tier II reading intervention.

		Less than once, on average	Once a month	Two or three times a month	Weekly	Two or three times a week	Almost daily
a.	Ms. Nyhof’s 1st grade class	1	2	3	4	5	6
b.	Ms. Vaughn’s 1st grade class	1	2	3	4	5	6

Only teachers who are selected in question 30 will show.

Treatment-Only Section

As part of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading (MTSS-R) study, you and your school have been implementing the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI)/CORE Partners MTSS-R model. The following questions ask about your experiences with and perceptions of the ECRI/CORE Partners training, supports, and implementation.

32. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about the ECRI/CORE Partners’ implementation this past year.

Please consider the Sound Partners program to be part of the CORE Partners approach.

		Disagree Strongly	Disagree Somewhat	Agree Somewhat	Agree Strongly
a.	I felt prepared to implement the ECRI/CORE Partners approach after the initial trainings (i.e., during the summer or fall).	1	2	3	4
b.	The ongoing support from the ECRI/CORE Partners coach based in my district has given me a clear sense of how to implement the ECRI/ CORE Partners approach.	1	2	3	4
c.	The ongoing support from the external ECRI/CORE Partners trainers has given me a clear sense of how to implement the ECRI/CORE Partners approach.	1	2	3	4
d.	I have a much better understanding of how to interpret and use assessment data to differentiate my instruction because of the ECRI/CORE Partners trainings and supports (e.g., coaching).	1	2	3	4
e.	I have a much better understanding of how to apply explicit instruction techniques because of the ECRI/CORE Partners trainings and supports (e.g., coaching).	1	2	3	4
f.	The materials I received from ECRI/CORE Partners for reading instruction clearly specified what I should teach and how I should teach.	1	2	3	4

Instructions will only show to staff in CORE schools.

Item g will not include the parenthetical about Sound Partners for staff in ECRI schools.

33. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about the ECRI/CORE Partners’ approach.

Please consider the Sound Partners program to be part of the CORE Partners approach.

		Disagree Strongly	Disagree Somewhat	Agree Somewhat	Agree Strongly
b.	The ECRI/CORE Partners approach will help improve my students reading skills more than approaches I or my school have used in the past.	1	2	3	4
c.	I am excited to continue to use the ECRI/CORE Partners approach next year.	1	2	3	4
d.	The ECRI/CORE approach did NOT provide enough guidance in exactly what should be taught and how.	1	2	3	4
f.	The ECRI/CORE Partners approach was culturally and linguistically sensitive to the population of students in my school.	1	2	3	4
g.	The ECRI/CORE Partners approach addressed the needs of students who receive special education services for a learning disability in reading	1	2	3	4
h.	The ECRI/CORE Partners approach addressed the needs of English learners	1	2	3	4
i.	The ECRI/CORE Partner approach allowed for flexibility in my reading instruction.	1	2	3	4
j.	The ECRI/CORE Partner approach accommodated all of my students’ needs.	1	2	3	4
k.	The ECRI/CORE Partner approach allowed me to tailor instruction to meet my students’ needs.	1	2	3	4
l.	The lessons from the ECRI/CORE Partners approach to Tier II (i.e., Sound Partners program) was coordinated with the ECRI/CORE Partner approach to Tier I instruction.	1	2	3	4

Instructions will only show to staff in CORE schools.

Item l will not include the parenthetical about Sound Partners for staff in ECRI schools.

34. To what extent did each of the following make implementing the ECRI/CORE Partners approach a challenge, this year?

Please consider the Sound Partners program to be part of the CORE Partners approach.

		Not at all a challenge	Minor Challenge	Moderate Challenge	Major Challenge
a.	Insufficient training on ECRI/CORE Partners approach	1	2	3	4
b.	Insufficient ongoing technical assistance on ECRI/CORE Partners approach	1	2	3	4
c.	Insufficient time to practice ECRI/CORE Partners approach	1	2	3	4
d.	Lack of support from school leadership	1	2	3	4
e.	The ECRI/Core Partners approach does not align with my philosophy about how to teach reading	1	2	3	4
f.	Lack of coherence with the reading program my school uses	1	2	3	4
g.	Lack of clear guidance from my school’s MTSS-R team	1	2	3	4
h.	Lack of guidance on how to adapt the ECRI/Core Partners approach to teaching students with disabilities	1	2	3	4
i.	Lack of guidance on how to adapt the ECRI/Core Partners approach to teaching English learners	1	2	3	4
j.	Resistance from parents of my students	1	2	3	4
k.	Resistance from my students	1	2	3	4
l.	Resistance from school staff	1	2	3	4

Instructions will only show to staff in CORE schools.

35. How likely would you be to recommend the ECRI/CORE Partners MTSS-R approach to other schools, after this study has ended?

Please consider the Sound Partners program to be part of the CORE Partners approach.

Not at all likely									Extremely likely
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Instructions will only show to staff in CORE schools.

i