RTI in Pennsylvania: A Statewide Initiative

1
RTI in PennsylvaniaA Statewide Initiative

• Joseph F. Kovaleski Lynanne Black
• Indiana University of PA
• Edward S. Shapiro
• Lehigh University

2
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.

3
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

4
Pennsylvania's Response to Intervention Framework
Tier 3Intensive Interventions for Low Performing
Students Alter curriculum, Add time, support
resources
Continuum of Time, Intensity and Data Increases
Percentage of Students Requiring Intensive
Supports Decreases
Strategic Interventions for Students at Risk of
Academic Failure
Tier 2 Strategic and Targeted Interventions for S
tudents At Risk for Failure Strategic
Instruction, Increased Time and Opportunity to
Learn
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)
PaTTAN (2005)
5
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

6
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

7
RTI Pilot Program

• 7 geographically representative elementary
  schools selected on the basis of presence of
  readiness factors.
• Training began in 2005-2006.
• Implementation in place since 2006-2007.

8
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

9
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

10
Abington- Overlook Model
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 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
60-120 min wk PM 1x week
TIER TIME- TIER 1 (enrichment) 30 min 5x
week PM every other week



TIER 1 All Students in Core Program Enrichment,
flexible grouping, regular ed teachers
Winter Benchmark (Reading Passages Given)
11
Abington School District Overlook Elementary
SchoolRtI Instructional Programs
12
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.

13
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

14

• 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

15
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

16
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)

17

• 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 (n6) 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.

18
Figure 1. Summary of risk levels across sites for
K, along with comparisons to Spring 06.
19
Figure 2 Summary of risk levels across sites for
K, along with comparisons to Spring 06.
20
Figure 3. Summary of risk levels across sites for
Grade 1, along with comparisons to Spring 06.
21
Figure 4. Summary of risk levels across sites for
Grade 1, along with comparisons to Spring 06.
22
Figure 5. Summary of risk levels across sites for
Grade 1, along with comparisons to Spring 06.
23
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)

24
Figure 6. Tier Movement from Fall to Winter
Across 4 Pilot Sites.
25
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

26
Figure 7. Targeted vs Attained Levels of Progress
Monitoring of Students at Tier 2 for Abington.
27
Figure 7. Targeted vs Attained Levels of Progress
Monitoring of Students at Tier 3 for Abington.
28
Figure 8 Targeted vs Attained Levels of Progress
Monitoring of Students at Tier 2 and Tier 3 for
Montoursville.
29

• To download this presentation, visit
• http//www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/rti.htm
• For more information about Pennsylvanias RTI
  Project, visit
• http//www.pattan.net/teachlead/ResponsetoInterven
  tion(RtI).aspx
• Presenters emails
• Joe Kovaleski jkov_at_iup.edu
• Ed Shapiro ess2_at_Lehigh.EDU
• Lynanne Black lblack_at_iup.edu