Teaching · Reading Intervention

Keep going, push harder, or change course: decide from the data.

Enter attendance, fidelity and the student’s scores, and mark how the last four points sit against the aim line. The summary computes the gain per week so far and the gain still needed, says what the data point toward and checks the team’s decision against it.

Start a reviewWhat you get
$12one-time · every device you sign in on
Buy · $12

Included with Caveat Classroom and Whole-school licenses. Or get it in the Reading Intervention toolkit, $49 for 34 items.

The continuation review

One review per student and decision point. Use initials or a code, never a name. The example is made up.

Loading the form. If nothing appears, turn on JavaScript.

What you get

Teaching · Reading Intervention$12 · included with Classroom and Whole-school licenses

What you finish with
For each review, attendance and fidelity, the student’s rate of improvement and the rate needed, the four-point pattern, other evidence and the decision, with what the data point toward and the flags to resolve.
Who it is for
Reading interventionists, reading specialists, MTSS and data teams, and school psychologists reviewing intervention decisions.
Format
Browser form. Several saved records; printed with the summary or as a blank review form; CSV with one row per review; export and import a file.
Access
$12 one-time, yours on every device you sign in on; the tool opens once you are signed in with it. Included with Caveat Classroom and Whole-school licenses. Also in the Reading Intervention toolkit ($49) and the Teaching Suite pass ($199), and 1 more bundle. Everything you type stays in this browser; nothing is sent to Caveat.
Where it lives
The Reading Intervention space in Caveat Teaching.
Support
Questions about an order, access or a correction: team@caveatacademic.com.
Drawn for this page. At each review the team picks a direction: keep going, climb harder, take another road, or step off.

How to use it

  1. Start a record with the student’s initials or a code and the review date.
  2. Enter the intervention, weeks, sessions planned and attended, and the fidelity check.
  3. Enter the measure, baseline, current median, goal and weeks left, and the four-point pattern.
  4. Mark other evidence, then choose the decision and say exactly what changes.
  5. Compare the decision with what the data point toward before closing the review.

Start a review

What the review is for

Rates, not single scores

The rate of improvement is the gain per week between the baseline and the current score; the rate needed is what is left to the goal divided by the weeks left. When the needed rate is well above the current rate, more of the same will not close the gap. Using the median of the last three scores as the current score steadies a bumpy line.

The four-point rule

A common decision rule in progress monitoring looks at the four most recent points: all above the aim line suggests raising the goal, all below suggests changing the intervention, and a mix suggests continuing. Before changing anything, teams check attendance and whether the intervention was delivered as planned.

Intervention and evaluation

Federal guidance is clear that a response-to-intervention process cannot be used to delay or deny an evaluation for special education when a disability is suspected. This organizer supports a team decision; it does not make one, and it uses the student’s own scores rather than norms. Records use a code, never a name, and stay in this browser.

Sources

  1. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. Progress monitoring guidance, including decision rules based on the four most recent data points, National Center on Student Progress Monitoring and National Center on Intensive Intervention (intensiveintervention.org).
  2. Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A Practical Guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  3. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2011). Memorandum OSEP 11-07: A response to intervention process cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under IDEA.
  4. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations, 34 CFR 300.301 and 300.309(b) (initial evaluation; data-based documentation of repeated assessments at reasonable intervals).
  5. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 34 CFR Part 99.

The example student is made up. The organizer computes rates from the student’s own scores and supports a team decision; it does not decide eligibility. Support: team@caveatacademic.com.