Appendix A MTSS-R Teacher Survey

MTSS-R

Teacher 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 30 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 Teacher:

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 teachers have received on MTSS-R practices, school- and classroom-level practices related to reading instruction, and background information on the teachers 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 IRBChair@air.org; 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 teach READING to at least one classroom of 1^st or 2^nd grade students. .

Please select all that apply.

• I teach reading to 1^st grade students

• I teach reading to 2^nd grade students

• I do not teach reading to 1^st or 2^nd grade students

If the teacher selects “I do not teach reading to 1st or 2nd grade students”, end the survey.

Education and Background

2. Including the current school 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

3. 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

4. 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.

Select all that apply.

• I participated in professional development on early reading instruction

• I participated in professional development on 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 9.

5. 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), 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

6. 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 5a will receive this question.

7. To what extent were the following 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 core reading instruction is aligned with the content of the Tier II reading intervention.	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
f.	How to use choral response to enhance phonics instruction	1	2	3	4
g.	How to identify and use additional resources for lesson planning and reading instruction	1	2	3	4

Only teachers who responded with 1 or more hours in question 5a will receive this question.

MTSS-R Coaching During the 2021–22 School Year

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

• Yes

• No – skip to 15

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

I met with

coaches/reading specialists.

10. 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.

		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): __________________________________

11. 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 10.

12. 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.	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
b.	Instructional strategies for vocabulary	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
c.	Instructional strategies for comprehension	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
d.	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
e.	Strategies for differentiating my instruction	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
f.	How to implement the core reading program with fidelity	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
g.	Ways of improving lesson planning (e.g., picking appropriate content, using supplemental resources)	N/A	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
h.	Instructional strategies to increase student engagement	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
i.	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
j.	Instructional strategies specific to English learners	O Yes O No	O Yes O No	O Yes O No
k.	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 11.

13. 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.	The feedback from the coach(es) was consistent with other feedback I have received this year.	1	2	3	4
f.	The activities with by coach(es) fit well within my schedule.	1	2	3	4

14. 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	2	3	4
b.	I have changed the way I teach foundational reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, word study, fluency).	1	2	3	4
c.	I have changed the way I teach vocabulary skills.	1	2	3	4
d.	I have changed the way I teach comprehension skills.	1	2	3	4
e.	The coaching has clarified my understanding of the strengths of the core reading program my school uses.	1	2	3	4
f.	The coaching has clarified my understanding of the limitations of the core reading program my school uses.	1	2	3	4

Infrastructure: MTSS-R/Data 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 reviewing 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.

15. 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 1^st or 2^nd grade student data to identify or support students who are struggling with reading.

I attended

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 17.

16. 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 for Teachers’ Instruction

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

		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

18. DURING THE 2021-22 SCHOOL YEAR, did you use data on your students’ performance in READING (e.g., screening, progress monitoring, or other assessments, including teacher-administered assessments) when doing each of the following?

Select all that apply.

• Identify individual students who need Tier II reading intervention

• Identify reading areas where students are struggling in order to inform my classroom-level instruction (e.g., reteaching a topic to the whole class)

• Support a referral for special education

• Support a referral for English language services

• Tailor instruction to individual needs

• Recommend tutoring or other educational services for students

• Assign or reassign students to groups during reading instruction

• Determine instructional materials to use during reading instruction

19. IN THE PAST MONTH, how often have you done each of the following during reading instruction as a direct result of students’ data in reading (e.g., screening, progress monitoring, or other assessments, including teacher-administered assessments)?

		I have not done this in the past month	Once in the past month	Twice in the past month	About once per week	More than once per week
a.	Re-taught key concepts to some, but not all, students	1	2	3	4	5
b.	Used same-level reading skill groupings	1	2	3	4	5
c.	Used mixed-level reading skill groupings	1	2	3	4	5
d.	Used individual instruction during class to address the needs of struggling students	1	2	3	4	5

Classroom Practices

20. On a typical school day, how much time do you spend providing core reading instruction to the students in your class (i.e., time spent on core reading instruction inside the reading block)?

Minutes

21. What activities are MOST OF THE OTHER STUDENTS typically engaged in when the students in your class who are struggling with reading receive Tier II reading intervention?

Please select all that apply.

• Students are being taught reading (e.g., during large-group / classroom-level instruction, or small-group or center time instruction)

• Students are being taught another academic subject (e.g., mathematics, science, social studies)

• Students are being taught a non-academic subject (e.g., art, music)

• Students are engaged in another activity (e.g., recess)

• Students do independent reading-related activities (e.g., work independently on computer)

• Other, please specify: _________________________

We’d now like you to think back to the core reading instruction that took place today. If you did not teach a reading today, please think back to the most recent day you taught core reading (e.g., yesterday’s lesson, or last Friday’s lesson).

22. Approximately how much time did you spend in each of the following activities when teaching core reading?

Please do not double count time.

a.	Large-group / classroom-level instruction				Minutes
b.	Small-group or center time instruction				Minutes

[Teachers that respond with 0 minutes for 22b will skip to the rest of this section.]

23. You indicated that you had small group or center time activities. Did students remain in the same group throughout the small group activities, or were students regrouped?

• The students remained in the same groups throughout the small group/center time activities.

• I regrouped the students during the small group/center time activities.

24. We now would like you to think about how the students were grouped during the small-group or center time instruction. How many groups of students were there?

If students were regrouped once or more during the small-group or center time instruction, please think about THE INITIAL STUDENT GROUPS.

There were

student groups.

25. Using the roster of students below, please indicate how the students were grouped together during the small-group or center time instruction.

If students were regrouped once or more during the small-group or center time instruction, please think about the initial student groups.

	Please mark all students in Group #1	Please mark all students in Group #2	Please mark all students in Group #3	Please mark all students in Group #4	Student is not in my class / was not in the reading block
Alesia Thacker	O	O	O	O	O
Alisa Wain	O	O	O	O	O
Angeline Fenimore	O	O	O	O	O
Bethel Kreps	O	O	O	O	O
Calvin Kissinger	O	O	O	O	O
Christa Scicchitano	O	O	O	O	O
Dominique Buchan	O	O	O	O	O
Dwayne Swart	O	O	O	O	O
Franchesca Brendel	O	O	O	O	O
Francisco Stilwell	O	O	O	O	O
Fredericka Hopes	O	O	O	O	O
Isabell Watt	O	O	O	O	O
Jennefer Suman	O	O	O	O	O
Johnsie Lashley	O	O	O	O	O
Kacy Cordle	O	O	O	O	O
Kary Speight	O	O	O	O	O
Laurie Pavlak	O	O	O	O	O
Louise Saam	O	O	O	O	O
Mariah Biel	O	O	O	O	O
Shirly Goncalves	O	O	O	O	O
Steffanie Vela	O	O	O	O	O
Theresa Hinchey	O	O	O	O	O
Add Student: _______	O	O	O	O	O
Add Student: _______	O	O	O	O	O

26. For each group of students, please record how much time you spent with each group, whether another staff member worked with this group, and whether the students worked on reading activities on a computer during the small group time.

Group	Students
#1	Jennefer Suman, Louise Saam, Christa Scicchitano, Angeline Fenimore, Francisco Stilwell, Dominique Buchan	 I spent approximately ___ ___ minutes with this group  Another staff member worked with this group  Students worked on reading activities on a computer
#2	Alesia Thacker, Isabell Watt, Bethel Kreps, Shirly Goncalves, Kacy Cordle	 I spent approximately ___ ___ minutes with this group  Another staff member worked with this group  Students worked on reading activities on a computer
#3	Dwayne Swart, Theresa Hinchey, Johnsie Lashley, Fredericka Hopes, Laurie Pavlak	 I spent approximately ___ ___ minutes with this group  Another staff member worked with this group  Students worked on reading activities on a computer
#4	Calvin Kissinger, Franchesca Brendel, Alisa Wain, Steffanie Vela, Kary Speight, Mariah Biel	 I spent approximately ___ ___ minutes with this group  Another staff member worked with this group  Students worked on reading activities on a computer

27. What were the PRIMARY reasons why you decided to group students in this way?

Select all that apply.

• Students work well together

• Students were sitting close to each other already

• The students were grouped by reading ability/performance, using same-level groupings

• The students were grouped by reading ability/performance, using mixed-level groupings

• I grouped my students, in part, based on whether they receive special education services for a learning disability in reading

• I grouped my students, in part, based on whether they were English learners

• Other, specify:____________________________

28. You indicated that you grouped students in part by performance. What were the PRIMARY data source(s) you used to determine students’ performance level for the topic/task?

Select all that apply.

• Screening data for reading (e.g., AIMSweb, STAR, MAP, or DIBELS, collected a few times per year)

• Progress monitoring data for reading (e.g., AIMSweb, STAR, MAP, or DIBELS, collected periodically, such as monthly, across the year)

• Diagnostic tests (e.g., the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (C-TOPP), Dyslexia Early Screening Test, second edition (DEST-2))

• Performance on teacher-administered assessments (e.g., end of unit tests, classroom quizzes)

• Student participation in educational programs (e.g., EL, Title I, gifted and talented, special education)

• Other; specify:____________

[Teachers will only receive this question if ‘grouped by reading ability/performance’ was selected in the prior question.]

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)/Consortium on Reading Excellence in Education (CORE) Partners MTSS-R model. The following questions ask about your experiences with and perceptions of the ECRI/CORE Partners training, supports, and implementation.

29. 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
h.	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 teachers in CORE schools who are also interventionists.

30. 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
a.	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
b.	I am excited to continue to use the ECRI/CORE Partners approach next year.	1	2	3	4
c.	The ECRI/CORE approach did NOT provide enough guidance in exactly what should be taught and how.	1	2	3	4
d.	The ECRI/CORE Partners approach was culturally and linguistically sensitive to the population of students in my school.	1	2	3	4
e.	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
f.	The ECRI/CORE Partners approach addressed the needs of English learners	1	2	3	4
g.	The ECRI/CORE Partner approach allowed for flexibility in my reading instruction.	1	2	3	4
h.	The ECRI/CORE Partner approach accommodated all of my students’ needs.	1	2	3	4
i.	The ECRI/CORE Partner approach allowed me to tailor instruction to meet my students’ needs.	1	2	3	4
j.	The lessons from ECRI/CORE Partner’s approach to Tier II (i.e., Sound Partners program) were coordinated with the ECRI/CORE Partner approach I used in my classroom.	1	2	3	4

Instructions will only show to teachers in CORE schools who are also interventionists.

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

31. 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 teachers in CORE schools who are also interventionists.

32. 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 teachers in CORE schools who are also interventionists.

i