Tiers of Intervention in K3

1
Tiers of Intervention in K-3

• Rollanda OConnor
• Deborah Fulmer, Kristin Harty
• University of Pittsburgh

Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of
Education. When citing materials presented
during the symposium, please use the following
OConnor, R., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. (2003,
December). Tiers of intervention in K - 3. Paper
presented at the National Research Center on
Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Interventi
on Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
2
A Fact that Shifted Thinking About Reading
Intervention

• Phonemic awareness is more strongly associated
  with reading achievement at the end of first
  grade than IQ, vocabulary, or SES of the family.
• Share, Jorm, et al (1984 1986)
• Juel (1988)
• Perfetti, Beck, Bell Hughes (1988)

3
Prediction Efforts

• Catch 20-40
• Recommendations
• Consider early intervention interfaced with
  measures sensitive to growth in prereading and
  real reading skill
• Keep intervention flexible to release children
  mistakenly caught in the RD net

4
Moving from Research to Practice

• We can intervene directly (11 31), but it is
  costly.
• Can we teach classroom teachers to intervene?

5
Increasing the Intensity of Intervention

• A layered model of intervention
• PD for teachers
• Measurement of children
• Feedback to teachers on childrens progress
• Additional intervention for children below
  average
• Flexible movement across groups and conditions
• OConnor (2000)

6
Results for K-1
7
Longitudinal Intervention

• 4 year, K-3 Model Demonstration Research
• Layers of Intervention (1999-2003)
• Seeking additive effects
• Control (2nd-3rd graders and their teachers)
• PD (Professional Development for the teachers who
  were in the control group the previous year)
• PD Direct intervention with children
• Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, OSEP

8
Questions

• What do teachers implement from PD?
• How does PD affect reading achievement?
• Who needs more intensive instruction?
• For how long?
• How does a schoolwide EI model
• Affect achievement across student groups?
• Affect identification rates for special education?

9
Design

• 2 schools
• 16 classrooms (100 per grade)
• 4 K
• 3 Gr 1
• 1 Gr 1-2
• 3 Gr 2
• 3 Gr 3
• 2 Gr 3-4
• Historical control groups (Grade 2-3)

10
Conditions Across Years
11
Professional Development Content 3 full days,
both schools

• K-1
• Phonemic awareness, letters sounds, decoding,
  measurement
• Gr 2
• Decoding, fluency, vocabulary, measurement
• Gr 3
• Word analysis, vocabulary, fluency,
  comprehension, measurement

12
Professional Development Content 4 2-hour
sessions by school

• Discussion of observations
• Data on class lists
• Suggestions and additional instructional
  activities
• In PDIntervention intervention plans,
  activities, schedules

13
Measurement for All Children

• September, January, May
• K Segmenting,rapid letter names, letter sounds
• Gr 1 K measures for children below benchmarks,
  WRMT, Fluency in January
• Gr 2-3 WRMT, Fluency
• Children gt .5 above norms skipped Jan. tests
• Children gt .5 below norms measured monthly on
  progress measures

14
Direct Intervention in K

• In January (31 children, 10-15 min groups, 3
  x/week)
• lt 15 letters
• lt 10 phonemes
• Focus on segmenting, letter names sounds, and
  segment-to-spell with known letter sounds
• End of K
• 9 children caught up, stayed up through Gr 3
• 2 caught up, fell behind by Jan. of Gr 1

15
Direct Intervention, Grade 1

• In September, 18 children .5 sd below norms on
  WRMT (from K intervention group)
• Focus Short vowels, decodable sentences,
  decodable texts (20-25 min/3 per week, 3-4/group)
• January 2 caught up and stayed up
• 2 from released K group rejoined
• 2 new students identified
• 8 of the 22 moved to Tier 3 5 days per week,
  2/group
• March 3 more caught up and stayed up
• 3 more join Tier 3 (all future LD in Tier 3)

16
In and Out of Intervention
17
Classroom Instructional Changes

• K began letter/sound instruction 1-3 months
  earlier
• Shift from 1st sound to all sounds in words
• Added a letter manipulation center
• Gr 1 formed 2-3 reading groups
• Short vowel emphasis September-October
• Large group modeled blending to decode
• Gr 2-3 grouped for instruction in all but 2
  classes
• Oral reading fluency 2 or more times/week
• Multi-syllable word strategies

18
Results (End of Gr 3)

• All Students
• PD gt Control on WRMT-R Fluency (not PPVT)
• ES for Word ID, Wd ATT, Comp, Fluency .2, .3,
  .3, .5
• Children At-Risk
• PD gt Control in Wd ATT, Comp, Fluency
• ES for Wd ATT, Comp, Fluency .5, .3, .4
• PD gt Control on all reading measures
• ES for Word ID, Wd ATT, Comp, Fluency .4, .7,
  .5, .5

19
Children with Disabilities in Gr 3

• Rates of placement in Special Education
• 15 in Control
• 12 in Professional Development only
• 8 in PDDirect Intervention

20
Special Education Outcomes, Gr 3
21
Changes in 3rd Grade Reading
22
Conclusions

• Enhanced teaching intervention increased
  reading performance for children overall, and for
  children with disabilities
• We made only small decreases in the gap,
  because typical performance rose .5 sd
• Reading rate more difficult to fix than skills

23
Lingering Issues

• Identification appeared to hinge on developmental
  reading stages
• Children fixed at one stage can still be at
  risk
• Placement rates could rise in the intermediate
  grades