RTI in Pennsylvania: A Statewide Initiative Joseph F. Kovaleski Lynanne Black Indiana University of PA Edward S. Shapiro Lehigh University

RTI Project Training Team Edward S. Shapiro & Joseph F. Kovaleski, Co-Principal Investigators Joy Eichelberger, Project Director Other university faculty and graduate assistants from Indiana University of PA and Lehigh University Technical assistance providers from the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) and from Pennsylvania Intermediate Units.

RTI in PA: A General-Special Education Collaboration Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau of Teaching and Learning –Edward Vollbrecht, Director –Angela Kirby-Wehr, Assistant Director Bureau of Special Education –John Tommasini, Director –Patricia Hozella, Assistant Director –Fran Warkomski, Director, PaTTAN

Strategic Interventions for Students at Risk of Academic Failure Tier 3:Intensive Interventions for Low Performing Students Alter curriculum, Add time, support resources… Tier I: Benchmark and School Wide Interventions for Students on Grade-level (benchmark) and All Students (Effective Instructional Practices provided within the General Education Curriculum) Tier 2: Strategic and Targeted Interventions for Students At –Risk for Failure Strategic Instruction, Increased Time and Opportunity to Learn PaTTAN (2005)

Key Characteristics of RtI Universal Screening of academics and behavior Data-analysis teaming Multiple tiers of increasingly intense interventions Differentiated curriculum-tiered intervention strategy Use of evidence-based interventions Continuous monitoring of student performance

Training Modules Developed by Statewide RTI team Administration and Preparing for RTI School-Based Behavioral Health Data Analysis Teaming Eligibility Determination Overview Principals and RTI Progress Monitoring Scientifically Based Core Programs Standard Protocol Interventions Differentiated Instruction Universal Screening

RTI Pilot Program 7 geographically representative elementary schools selected on the basis of presence of readiness factors. Training began in Implementation in place since

Pilot Sites East –Overlook Elementary, Abington School District –Highland Park Elementary, Upper Darby School District Central –Reid Elementary, Middletown Area School District –Loyalsock Elementary, Montoursville Area School District West –Oswayo Valley Elementary, Oswayo School District –Bellevue Elementary, Northgate School District –Washington Park Elementary, Washington School District

Pilot Site Summaries All 7 sites have in common –Universal screening in all sites in reading –Universal screening in 3 eastern/central and 3 western sites in math –Data based decision team meetings held at all sites –Standard protocols for reading implemented across sites –Each of the 7 sites has slight variation on the PA RTI model –School-wide data analysis teams established at each school –Data on all sites by Lehigh and IUP research teams and are being analyzed through support of Ed Shapiro and research team at Lehigh –Professional development provided to all sites in areas targeted as needed by each site through a combination of PaTTAN, IU personnel in some sites, University consultant, and ongoing on- site meetings with University consultants

TIER 1: All Students in Core Program (Everyone is taught reading from H-M) Fall Benchmark (Reading Passages Given) Student Benchmark Score = BENCHMARK (90% will do fine) Student Benchmark Score = STRATEGIC (Might be at risk) Student Benchmark Score = INTENSIVE (Definitely at risk) TIER 1: All Students in Core Program Enrichment, flexible grouping, regular ed teachers TIER TIME- TIER 2 Intervention (additional specific interv Reg ed/reading sp) 30 min 5x week PM every other week TIER TIME TIER 3 Intervention (additional specific interv Rdg sp/SpEd) 30 min 5x week min wk PM 1x week ++ Winter Benchmark (Reading Passages Given) TIER TIME- TIER 1 (enrichment) 30 min 5x week PM every other week +

Abington School District: Overlook Elementary School RtI Instructional Programs RTI Level Curriculum ComponentGrade Level K-23-6 Tier 1Houghton Mifflin Invitations to LiteracyXX Open Court PhonicsX Compass LearningXX Tier 2Open Court PhonicsX Breakthrough to LiteracyX Soar to SuccessX Tier 3Breakthrough to LiteracyX FundationsX Soar to SuccessX Wilson ReadingX

Important Key Training Accomplishments Strong support from PaTTAN consultants from 3 centers Development of RTI training teams at 2 IUs. These technical assistance personnel provided extensive training and guided practice support at the pilot sites. Development of 10 training modules ready for use on a statewide basis. Provision of four trainer-of-trainers workshops attended by technical assistance staff from 29 IUs.

Project Accomplishments All sites established models with 3 tiers Strength of tier 1 and core programs in reading/math were emphasized in all sites Most sites established clearly defined standard protocol interventions at tiers 2 and 3 All sites established school wide data analysis teams that met around data- based decisions regarding student assignment to tiers All sites emphasized RTI in reading, a few also involved math

All sites administered universal screening (DIBELS or AIMSweb passages) in reading 3x per year 6 of 7 sites administered 4sight in reading and/or math at least 3 times per year Analysis of Level of Implementation assessed across most sites for at least one major component of RTI Analysis of integrity of implementation of data analysis team meetings obtained across many sites All sites provided multiple forms of ongoing professional development

Methods – The Nature of the Models Across Sites All sites had well established core program at tier 1 Many sites established “tier time” (called different titles at different sites) where all students received some form of supplemental instruction including those at benchmark Tiered intervention consisted of 30 to 45 minutes, 3 to 7x per week (tiers 2 or 3) across sites Progress monitoring for students at tier 2 (once every other week) and tier 3 (once per week) implemented primarily in reading across sites Special education students were included among those in tiered intervention across most sites

Risk Data –Strong outcomes across sites at K-1. –Across 7 sites, students at low risk in ORF at end of Grade 1 was 72% (range 62% to 83%), those at risk 8% (3% to 11%). (See Figures 1 to 5) –Percentage of Students At Low Risk increased by as much as 12% over the students at low risk comparing spring 2007 to spring 2006 in 4 sites where spring 2006 data were available. (See Table 1)

–Reading outcomes as assessed by ORF at grade 2 through 6 were variable across sites with those ending at Low Risk ranging from 42% to 74% across sites –Consistently found across all sites that administered 4sight multiple times during the year (n=6) that a high percentage (between 33% and 100%, average of 65% at grade 3, 75% at grade 4, 83% at grade 5 across sites) of students who were found to score at “Some risk” according to DIBELS or AIMSweb benchmarks and scored as Proficient/Advanced on the end-of-year 4sight and PSSA.

Figure 1.Summary of risk levels across sites for K, along with comparisons to Spring 06.

Figure 2Summary of risk levels across sites for K, along with comparisons to Spring 06.

Figure 3.Summary of risk levels across sites for Grade 1, along with comparisons to Spring 06.

Figure 4.Summary of risk levels across sites for Grade 1, along with comparisons to Spring 06.

Figure 5.Summary of risk levels across sites for Grade 1, along with comparisons to Spring 06.

Tier Movement –Most movement across tiers occurred from Fall to Winter –Across 4 sites, 36% of students moved from more to less intensive tiers (T3 to T2 or T2 to T1), while 20% moved from less intensive to more intensive tiers (T1 to T2 or T2 to T3). (see Figures 6)

Figure 6. Tier Movement from Fall to Winter Across 4 Pilot Sites.

Movement Within Tiers –Reflected in change in progress monitoring among students –Across sites where tier 2 and tier 3 progress monitoring were collected, data reflected substantial growth across students against expected target levels of growth –Examples shown in graphs reflect gains at or above levels expected of typical students for that grade (see Figures 7, 8) –Substantial gains were evident for those at tier 2 and tier 3

Figure 7.Targeted vs Attained Levels of Progress Monitoring of Students at Tier 2 for Abington.

Figure 7.Targeted vs Attained Levels of Progress Monitoring of Students at Tier 3 for Abington.

Figure 8Targeted vs Attained Levels of Progress Monitoring of Students at Tier 2 and Tier 3 for Montoursville.

To download this presentation, visit: For more information about Pennsylvania’s RTI Project, visit: Intervention(RtI).aspx Presenters’ s: Joe Kovaleski: Ed Shapiro: Lynanne Black: