SPED 5313 WEEK 2 CASE STUDY | 2026
UPDATE
WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS - LAMAR UNIVERSITY
This comprehensive case study review covers MTSS/RTI foundations, universal screening tools, early
identification practices, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), classroom observation and behavioral
data collection methods, initial referral processes, prereferral documentation requirements, and
legal/ethical considerations in special education. All 50 multiple-choice questions include
rationale-aligned answer options reflecting current Texas Education Agency (TEA) guidance and IDEA
mandates.
50 Questions | 5 Content Sections | Complete Answer Key
April 22, 2026
,SECTION 1: MTSS/RTI Foundations
Question 1. Under Texas Education Agency (TEA) guidance updated for 2026, the Multi-Tiered System of
Supports (MTSS) framework is conceptualized as a continuum of increasingly intensive, evidence-based
interventions. Which of the following most accurately distinguishes Tier 1 from Tier 2 within this framework?
A. Tier 1 delivers specialized instruction to students with identified disabilities, while Tier 2 provides
enrichment for gifted and talented learners.
B. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are identical in scope; the only difference is that Tier 2 is delivered by a special educator
rather than a general educator.
C. Tier 1 consists of high-quality, research-based core instruction provided universally to all students,
while Tier 2 supplements core instruction with targeted, small-group interventions for students who do
not respond adequately to Tier 1 alone.
D. Tier 1 focuses exclusively on behavioral supports, while Tier 2 focuses exclusively on academic
interventions.
Question 2. Mr. Dominguez, a third-grade teacher at a campus in Houston ISD, implements a Tier 2 reading
fluency intervention with a small group of six students. After four weeks, he notices that the paraprofessional
delivering the intervention skips the repeated-reading component on most days and abbreviates the guided
practice. Students' progress monitoring data show minimal growth. Which MTSS principle is most directly
compromised in this situation?
A. Intervention fidelity, because the intervention is not being delivered as designed, making it
impossible to determine whether the lack of student progress is due to an ineffective intervention or
poor implementation.
B. Universal screening, because the students were not reassessed using a district-approved benchmark
assessment before the intervention began.
C. Parental consent, because modifying an intervention plan requires renotification of parents under Texas
special education guidelines.
D. Cultural responsiveness, because the abbreviated format fails to account for the students' diverse linguistic
backgrounds.
Question 3. A fifth-grade student in an El Paso ISD elementary school has been receiving Tier 2 mathematics
intervention for eight weeks. Her curriculum-based measurement (CBM) scores have remained flat at the 18th
percentile despite the intervention being delivered with documented fidelity. The campus MTSS team convenes to
review her data. According to best practice and TEA guidance, what is the most appropriate next step in the
instructional adaptation cycle?
A. Discontinue all intervention immediately and refer the student for a comprehensive special education
evaluation, as eight weeks of flat data confirms a learning disability.
B. Maintain the current Tier 2 intervention for an additional 16 weeks, since Tier 2 interventions require a
minimum of 24 weeks before any changes can be considered.
C. Lower the progress monitoring frequency from weekly to monthly to reduce testing fatigue and allow
more instructional time.
D. Intensify the intervention by moving the student to Tier 3, which involves increasing the frequency,
duration, or explicitness of instruction while continuing to collect weekly progress monitoring data.
, SPED 5313 Week 2 Case Study Review | 2026 Update
Question 4. Ms. Okafor, a literacy coach at a Northside ISD middle school, is evaluating progress monitoring
tools for the campus 2026 MTSS plan. She needs a tool that provides brief, frequent, standardized measures of
oral reading fluency that are sensitive to short-term growth. Which of the following tools best fits this
description?
A. The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement, because it provides the most comprehensive diagnostic
profile available.
B. The Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-3), because it integrates academic and behavioral
data into a single progress monitoring framework.
C. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Third Edition (WIAT-III), because it includes
norm-referenced subtests aligned to state standards.
D. DIBELS 8th Edition, because it offers brief, standardized, repeatedly administered fluency probes
designed specifically for frequent progress monitoring.
Question 5. Texas TEA guidance identifies specific data-based decision rules that MTSS teams should apply
when interpreting progress monitoring data. Which of the following statements most accurately describes a
recommended decision rule within an MTSS framework?
A. If a student's progress monitoring trend line is below the aim line after four to six data points
(approximately four to six weeks of intervention), the team should modify the intervention or increase
its intensity.
B. A student should be referred for special education evaluation after any two consecutive data points that fall
below the 25th percentile, regardless of intervention duration or fidelity.
C. Once a student's score reaches grade-level benchmark on a single probe, the intervention should be
immediately discontinued without further data collection.
D. Decision rules are determined exclusively at the district level and cannot be modified by campus-level
MTSS teams under any circumstances.
Question 6. A campus MTSS team at a Fort Worth ISD elementary school reviews progress monitoring data for a
second-grade student who has received six weeks of Tier 2 reading intervention with fidelity. His weekly CBM
scores show a rate of improvement of 0.8 words correct per minute (WCPM) per week, while the grade-level
benchmark goal requires a rate of 1.5 WCPM per week to reach end-of-year proficiency. A team member
recommends immediate referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation. Analyze this recommendation
and the supporting data. What is the most appropriate critique?
A. The recommendation is sound because the student's growth rate is less than half the required rate,
confirming a disability requiring an IEP.
B. The recommendation is inappropriate because CBM data cannot be used for any eligibility decisions; only
formal psychological testing is admissible.
C. The recommendation is premature because, while the student is responding insufficiently, the team
has not yet intensified the intervention (e.g., moved to Tier 3 with increased frequency, duration, or
explicitness) to determine whether the student can make adequate progress with more intensive
support before invoking a special education referral.
D. The recommendation is inappropriate because six weeks of data is sufficient to conclusively rule out a
learning disability; the student simply needs more time.
Page 1
UPDATE
WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS - LAMAR UNIVERSITY
This comprehensive case study review covers MTSS/RTI foundations, universal screening tools, early
identification practices, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), classroom observation and behavioral
data collection methods, initial referral processes, prereferral documentation requirements, and
legal/ethical considerations in special education. All 50 multiple-choice questions include
rationale-aligned answer options reflecting current Texas Education Agency (TEA) guidance and IDEA
mandates.
50 Questions | 5 Content Sections | Complete Answer Key
April 22, 2026
,SECTION 1: MTSS/RTI Foundations
Question 1. Under Texas Education Agency (TEA) guidance updated for 2026, the Multi-Tiered System of
Supports (MTSS) framework is conceptualized as a continuum of increasingly intensive, evidence-based
interventions. Which of the following most accurately distinguishes Tier 1 from Tier 2 within this framework?
A. Tier 1 delivers specialized instruction to students with identified disabilities, while Tier 2 provides
enrichment for gifted and talented learners.
B. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are identical in scope; the only difference is that Tier 2 is delivered by a special educator
rather than a general educator.
C. Tier 1 consists of high-quality, research-based core instruction provided universally to all students,
while Tier 2 supplements core instruction with targeted, small-group interventions for students who do
not respond adequately to Tier 1 alone.
D. Tier 1 focuses exclusively on behavioral supports, while Tier 2 focuses exclusively on academic
interventions.
Question 2. Mr. Dominguez, a third-grade teacher at a campus in Houston ISD, implements a Tier 2 reading
fluency intervention with a small group of six students. After four weeks, he notices that the paraprofessional
delivering the intervention skips the repeated-reading component on most days and abbreviates the guided
practice. Students' progress monitoring data show minimal growth. Which MTSS principle is most directly
compromised in this situation?
A. Intervention fidelity, because the intervention is not being delivered as designed, making it
impossible to determine whether the lack of student progress is due to an ineffective intervention or
poor implementation.
B. Universal screening, because the students were not reassessed using a district-approved benchmark
assessment before the intervention began.
C. Parental consent, because modifying an intervention plan requires renotification of parents under Texas
special education guidelines.
D. Cultural responsiveness, because the abbreviated format fails to account for the students' diverse linguistic
backgrounds.
Question 3. A fifth-grade student in an El Paso ISD elementary school has been receiving Tier 2 mathematics
intervention for eight weeks. Her curriculum-based measurement (CBM) scores have remained flat at the 18th
percentile despite the intervention being delivered with documented fidelity. The campus MTSS team convenes to
review her data. According to best practice and TEA guidance, what is the most appropriate next step in the
instructional adaptation cycle?
A. Discontinue all intervention immediately and refer the student for a comprehensive special education
evaluation, as eight weeks of flat data confirms a learning disability.
B. Maintain the current Tier 2 intervention for an additional 16 weeks, since Tier 2 interventions require a
minimum of 24 weeks before any changes can be considered.
C. Lower the progress monitoring frequency from weekly to monthly to reduce testing fatigue and allow
more instructional time.
D. Intensify the intervention by moving the student to Tier 3, which involves increasing the frequency,
duration, or explicitness of instruction while continuing to collect weekly progress monitoring data.
, SPED 5313 Week 2 Case Study Review | 2026 Update
Question 4. Ms. Okafor, a literacy coach at a Northside ISD middle school, is evaluating progress monitoring
tools for the campus 2026 MTSS plan. She needs a tool that provides brief, frequent, standardized measures of
oral reading fluency that are sensitive to short-term growth. Which of the following tools best fits this
description?
A. The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement, because it provides the most comprehensive diagnostic
profile available.
B. The Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-3), because it integrates academic and behavioral
data into a single progress monitoring framework.
C. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Third Edition (WIAT-III), because it includes
norm-referenced subtests aligned to state standards.
D. DIBELS 8th Edition, because it offers brief, standardized, repeatedly administered fluency probes
designed specifically for frequent progress monitoring.
Question 5. Texas TEA guidance identifies specific data-based decision rules that MTSS teams should apply
when interpreting progress monitoring data. Which of the following statements most accurately describes a
recommended decision rule within an MTSS framework?
A. If a student's progress monitoring trend line is below the aim line after four to six data points
(approximately four to six weeks of intervention), the team should modify the intervention or increase
its intensity.
B. A student should be referred for special education evaluation after any two consecutive data points that fall
below the 25th percentile, regardless of intervention duration or fidelity.
C. Once a student's score reaches grade-level benchmark on a single probe, the intervention should be
immediately discontinued without further data collection.
D. Decision rules are determined exclusively at the district level and cannot be modified by campus-level
MTSS teams under any circumstances.
Question 6. A campus MTSS team at a Fort Worth ISD elementary school reviews progress monitoring data for a
second-grade student who has received six weeks of Tier 2 reading intervention with fidelity. His weekly CBM
scores show a rate of improvement of 0.8 words correct per minute (WCPM) per week, while the grade-level
benchmark goal requires a rate of 1.5 WCPM per week to reach end-of-year proficiency. A team member
recommends immediate referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation. Analyze this recommendation
and the supporting data. What is the most appropriate critique?
A. The recommendation is sound because the student's growth rate is less than half the required rate,
confirming a disability requiring an IEP.
B. The recommendation is inappropriate because CBM data cannot be used for any eligibility decisions; only
formal psychological testing is admissible.
C. The recommendation is premature because, while the student is responding insufficiently, the team
has not yet intensified the intervention (e.g., moved to Tier 3 with increased frequency, duration, or
explicitness) to determine whether the student can make adequate progress with more intensive
support before invoking a special education referral.
D. The recommendation is inappropriate because six weeks of data is sufficient to conclusively rule out a
learning disability; the student simply needs more time.
Page 1
