11

The Case for Using a Three Tiered The Case for Using a Three Tiered Model for Reading InterventionModel for Reading Intervention

Frank R. VellutinoFrank R. Vellutino

Child Research and Study CenterChild Research and Study Center

University at Albany-SUNYUniversity at Albany-SUNY

22

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

The studies conducted by Vellutino, The studies conducted by Vellutino,

Scanlon, and their associates were Scanlon, and their associates were

supported by grants funded through the supported by grants funded through the

National Institute of Child Health and National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development, the U.S. Human Development, the U.S.

Department of Education, and the National Department of Education, and the National

Science Foundation. Science Foundation.

33

Definition of Responsiveness to Definition of Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI)Intervention (RTI)

RTI is a new approach to determining whether RTI is a new approach to determining whether students should be classified as learning disabled. It students should be classified as learning disabled. It involves: involves:

Identifying students who are not meeting grade Identifying students who are not meeting grade level expectations.level expectations.

Providing remedial services that are intensified Providing remedial services that are intensified over several tiers of intervention.over several tiers of intervention.

Assessing students’ gains in the targeted Assessing students’ gains in the targeted academic area to determine whether they have academic area to determine whether they have accelerated their progress sufficiently to meet accelerated their progress sufficiently to meet grade level expectations. grade level expectations.

The RTI approach to identification of learning The RTI approach to identification of learning disability status is being offered as an alternative to disability status is being offered as an alternative to traditional psychometric approaches to classification traditional psychometric approaches to classification having the IQ-achievement discrepancy as the having the IQ-achievement discrepancy as the central defining criterion.central defining criterion.

44

The Three Tiered Model of The Three Tiered Model of Intervention Intervention

Three sequentially ordered intervention strategies:Three sequentially ordered intervention strategies: Tier 1—modification of classroom language arts instruction to Tier 1—modification of classroom language arts instruction to

assist children having learning difficulties.assist children having learning difficulties.

Tier 2—secondary (small group) instruction for children whose Tier 2—secondary (small group) instruction for children whose

learning difficulties are not resolved by modification in the learning difficulties are not resolved by modification in the

classroom program.classroom program.

Tier 3—more intensive and more individualized intervention Tier 3—more intensive and more individualized intervention

(smaller groups, more sessions, one-to-one) for children at (smaller groups, more sessions, one-to-one) for children at

continued risk, despite Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions.continued risk, despite Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions.

55

How did RTI Emerge as a How did RTI Emerge as a New Approach to LD New Approach to LD

Classification?Classification? Over two decades of research undermining the Over two decades of research undermining the

use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to define use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to define learning disabilities.learning disabilities.

Well over a decade of intervention research Well over a decade of intervention research documenting the utility of using an RTI approach documenting the utility of using an RTI approach to identifying learning disabilities in lieu of the to identifying learning disabilities in lieu of the IQ-achievement discrepancy.IQ-achievement discrepancy.

IDEIA-2004.IDEIA-2004.

66

Why do some children have difficulty Why do some children have difficulty learning to read ?learning to read ?

Two Broad PossibilitiesTwo Broad Possibilities

Basic deficits in reading related cognitive Basic deficits in reading related cognitive

abilities.abilities.

Experiential / Instructional deficitsExperiential / Instructional deficits..

The failure to make this distinction leads The failure to make this distinction leads

to a wide spread problem: Misdiagnosing to a wide spread problem: Misdiagnosing

Children as “Disabled Readers.”Children as “Disabled Readers.”

77

Psychometric ApproachPsychometric Approach

Definition by ExclusionDefinition by Exclusion IQ-Achievement discrepancy.IQ-Achievement discrepancy.

Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent

absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage

used as exclusionary criteria. used as exclusionary criteria.

““Neuropsychological” tests of reading-related cognitive Neuropsychological” tests of reading-related cognitive

abilities.abilities.

Estimates of incidence of reading disability range Estimates of incidence of reading disability range

from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.

88

The Psychometric Exclusionary The Psychometric Exclusionary Definition of Reading Disability: A Definition of Reading Disability: A

Brief HistoryBrief History

99

Kirk and Bateman (1962, 1963): Kirk and Bateman (1962, 1963): Learning disabilities are caused by Learning disabilities are caused by

neurodevelopmental disorders affecting neurodevelopmental disorders affecting

academic learning in otherwise normal academic learning in otherwise normal

children.children. Specific learning disabilities are different Specific learning disabilities are different

from general learning difficulties caused from general learning difficulties caused

by low IQ, sensory, physical, or by low IQ, sensory, physical, or

emotional deficits, or socioeconomic emotional deficits, or socioeconomic

disadvantage. disadvantage.

1010

Rutter and Yule (1975)—Isle of Wight StudyRutter and Yule (1975)—Isle of Wight Study Large Scale epidemiological study of reading Large Scale epidemiological study of reading

difficulties in U.K.difficulties in U.K. Percentage of children whose reading scores were Percentage of children whose reading scores were

significantly below those predicted by their ages and IQs was significantly below those predicted by their ages and IQs was

greater than expected (more than the 2.3% anticipated by a greater than expected (more than the 2.3% anticipated by a

normal curve model).normal curve model).

Rutter & Yule distinguished between “Specific Reading Rutter & Yule distinguished between “Specific Reading

Retardation” and “General Reading Backwardness” Retardation” and “General Reading Backwardness”

due to low intelligence.due to low intelligence.

1111

Rutter and Yule’s (1975) Isle of Wight Rutter and Yule’s (1975) Isle of Wight

Study and Kirk and Bateman’s work Study and Kirk and Bateman’s work

became the basis for Public Law 94-142, became the basis for Public Law 94-142,

which mandated that learning disabilities which mandated that learning disabilities

be defined as achievement deficits in be defined as achievement deficits in

otherwise normal children who have at otherwise normal children who have at

least average intelligence.least average intelligence. P.L.- 94-142 led to the widespread use of P.L.- 94-142 led to the widespread use of

psychometric exclusionary definitions of psychometric exclusionary definitions of

LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy

as its central defining criterion. as its central defining criterion.

1212

Contraindications to IQ-Achievement Contraindications to IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Discrepancy Definitions of Reading

DisabilityDisability

1313

Several large scale studies have shown that:Several large scale studies have shown that:

IQ does not predict reading achievement with a IQ does not predict reading achievement with a

high degree of accuracy (Malmquist, 1960).high degree of accuracy (Malmquist, 1960). Many IQ tests include items that depend on language Many IQ tests include items that depend on language

and/or reading ability (e.g. vocabulary, general and/or reading ability (e.g. vocabulary, general

knowledge; Bond & Fay, 1950; Durrell, 1933).knowledge; Bond & Fay, 1950; Durrell, 1933).

Non-verbal IQ tests predict reading achievement Non-verbal IQ tests predict reading achievement

with very low accuracy (Vellutino et al, 1994; 1996; with very low accuracy (Vellutino et al, 1994; 1996;

2000). 2000).

1414

Rutter and Yule’s findings were not replicated Rutter and Yule’s findings were not replicated

in later research; their results were found to be in later research; their results were found to be

due to measurement problems on the reading due to measurement problems on the reading

tests they used (Rodgers, 1983; Share et al., tests they used (Rodgers, 1983; Share et al.,

1987).1987).

Other studies found that:Other studies found that: IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers were no IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers were no

different than non-discrepant poor readers on different than non-discrepant poor readers on

measures of reading-related cognitive abilities measures of reading-related cognitive abilities

(Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994). (Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994).

Also, that some good readers have IQ-achievement Also, that some good readers have IQ-achievement

discrepancies.discrepancies.

Therefore the IQ-achievement discrepancy is Therefore the IQ-achievement discrepancy is

not a very precise measure of reading not a very precise measure of reading

disability.disability.

1515

Two important questions emerged from Two important questions emerged from

these findings:these findings: To what degree can IQ set upper limits on To what degree can IQ set upper limits on

and/or predict ability to learn to read? and/or predict ability to learn to read?

To what degree can IQ scores predict To what degree can IQ scores predict

response to remediation in struggling response to remediation in struggling

readers?readers?

1616

Can low IQ children learn to Can low IQ children learn to read? read?

Siegel (1988) compared reading disabled Siegel (1988) compared reading disabled

(n=250) and non-reading disabled children (n=250) and non-reading disabled children

(n=719) on language and literacy skills (ages 7 (n=719) on language and literacy skills (ages 7

to 16) and stratified these children into four IQ to 16) and stratified these children into four IQ

subgroups: IQ< 80; 80 to 90; 91 to 109; >110. subgroups: IQ< 80; 80 to 90; 91 to 109; >110.

the non-disabled readers fell into the same IQ the non-disabled readers fell into the same IQ

ranges as the disabled readers.ranges as the disabled readers.

within each of the IQ ranges, the disabled within each of the IQ ranges, the disabled

readers performed below the non-disabled readers performed below the non-disabled

readers on language-based measures (e.g. readers on language-based measures (e.g.

phoneme awareness, verbal memory, etc.).phoneme awareness, verbal memory, etc.).

1717

Share et al. (1989) stratified 3 year olds Share et al. (1989) stratified 3 year olds

into different IQ subgroups and tracked into different IQ subgroups and tracked

reading growth in these children until age reading growth in these children until age

13. 13. Siegel’s results were essentially replicated: Siegel’s results were essentially replicated:

disabled and non-disabled readers were found disabled and non-disabled readers were found

in each IQ subgroup.in each IQ subgroup.

IQ did not predict rate of growth in reading.IQ did not predict rate of growth in reading.

All of these studies provided evidence that All of these studies provided evidence that

measures of language and language-based measures of language and language-based

skills are better predictors of reading skills are better predictors of reading

ability than are IQ scores.ability than are IQ scores.

1818

Siegel (1989) and others have also pointed out Siegel (1989) and others have also pointed out

that:that: Most intelligence tests currently in use evaluate Most intelligence tests currently in use evaluate

acquired knowledge or cognitive abilities that can acquired knowledge or cognitive abilities that can

either be adversely affected by reading ability or either be adversely affected by reading ability or

adversely affect this ability. adversely affect this ability.

Children who suffer from long-standing reading Children who suffer from long-standing reading

difficulties eventually become below average difficulties eventually become below average

performers in areas such as vocabulary and syntactic performers in areas such as vocabulary and syntactic

knowledge, due to their limited ability to profit from knowledge, due to their limited ability to profit from

reading (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino et al., 1995).reading (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino et al., 1995).

1919

Problems with the Psychometric Problems with the Psychometric ApproachApproach

No control for pre-school experiences and instructionNo control for pre-school experiences and instruction Low diagnostic validity of most testsLow diagnostic validity of most tests Rely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancyRely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancy Too many children classified as “disabled readers” Too many children classified as “disabled readers”

(10%-20%)(10%-20%) Low expectations for achievementLow expectations for achievement No direction for instructionNo direction for instruction Little or no attention given to the quality and/or Little or no attention given to the quality and/or

characteristics of instructioncharacteristics of instruction

2020

Major ObjectivesMajor Objectives

To distinguish between biologically-based To distinguish between biologically-based

cognitive causes and experiential/instructional cognitive causes and experiential/instructional

causes of reading difficulties.causes of reading difficulties.

To compare responsiveness to intervention To compare responsiveness to intervention

(RTI) vs. psychometric approaches to (RTI) vs. psychometric approaches to

diagnosing reading disability.diagnosing reading disability.

To develop benchmarks for early identification To develop benchmarks for early identification

of children at-risk for reading difficulties.of children at-risk for reading difficulties.

First Grade Intervention StudyFirst Grade Intervention Study (Vellutino et al., 1996) (Vellutino et al., 1996)

2121

Major Components of the StudyMajor Components of the Study

Testing at the beginning of kindergarten to Testing at the beginning of kindergarten to

evaluate emergent literacy skills and reading-evaluate emergent literacy skills and reading-

related cognitive abilities (n = 1407).related cognitive abilities (n = 1407).

Periodic observation of language arts instruction Periodic observation of language arts instruction

in all kindergarten classrooms. in all kindergarten classrooms. 

Selection of poor and normal readers in mid-first Selection of poor and normal readers in mid-first

grade, using psychometric and exclusionary grade, using psychometric and exclusionary

criteria like those used in public schools.criteria like those used in public schools.

2222

Major Components of the Study (Cont’)Major Components of the Study (Cont’)

Daily one-to-one tutoring for most of the poor readers Daily one-to-one tutoring for most of the poor readers

(n=76). school-based remediation provided for the rest of (n=76). school-based remediation provided for the rest of

them (n = 42).them (n = 42).

Tutoring was highly individualized and comprehensive.Tutoring was highly individualized and comprehensive.

Compared four groups of poor readers (VLG, LG. GG, VGG) Compared four groups of poor readers (VLG, LG. GG, VGG)

and two groups of normal readers (AvIQNorm, and two groups of normal readers (AvIQNorm,

AbAvIQNorm). AbAvIQNorm).

First and third grade cognitive testing for all target children. First and third grade cognitive testing for all target children.

Progress in acquiring major reading skills was systematically Progress in acquiring major reading skills was systematically

evaluated from kindergarten through the end of fourth evaluated from kindergarten through the end of fourth

grade.grade.

2323

Approach to Instruction: Interactive Approach to Instruction: Interactive

Strategies ( Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002)Strategies ( Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002)

Components of Daily Tutoring Components of Daily Tutoring

Re-reading texts for fluency Re-reading texts for fluency

Phonological skills Phonological skills

Reading new texts Reading new texts

Sight word practice Sight word practice

Writing Writing

Instruction designed to promote interactive use of text-Instruction designed to promote interactive use of text-

based and code-based strategies in text readingbased and code-based strategies in text reading

2424

Major FindingsMajor Findings

Struggling readers in first grade performed below Struggling readers in first grade performed below

average on kindergarten measures of emergent average on kindergarten measures of emergent

literacy skills.literacy skills.

The kindergarten language arts program was an The kindergarten language arts program was an

influential determinant of first grade reading influential determinant of first grade reading

achievement. achievement.

The majority of tutored children (67%) scored in The majority of tutored children (67%) scored in

the average range after 15 weeks of daily one-one the average range after 15 weeks of daily one-one

tutoring (50% for comparison group). tutoring (50% for comparison group).

Only 15.8% scored below 15th percentile (1.5% of the Only 15.8% scored below 15th percentile (1.5% of the

population) population)

2525

Figure 1. Growth Curves for Mean Raw Scores on the WRMT-R Word Identification Subtest for Normal and

Tutored Poor Readers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

VLG (n = 19)

LG (n = 15)

GG (n = 17)

VGG (n = 18)

AvIQNorm (n = 21)

AbAvIQNorm (n = 30)

Kindergarten Grade 1Winter

Grade 1Spring

Grade 2Fall

Grade 2Winter

Grade 2Spring

Grade 3Spring

Grade 4Spring

Time Intervals Between Tests in Months

Wo

rd Id

en

tifi

ca

tio

n R

aw

Sc

ore

s o

n W

RM

T-R

VLG = Very Limited Grow thLG = Limited Grow thGG = Good Grow thVGG = Very Good Grow thWRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised

2626

Figure 2. Growth Curves for Mean Raw Scores on the WRMT-R Word Attack

Subtest for Normal and Tutored Poor Readers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Time Intervals Between Tests (Months)

Wo

rd A

tta

ck

Ra

w S

co

re o

n W

MR

T-R

VLG (n=19)

LG (n=15)

GG (n=17)

VGG (n=18)

AvIQNorm(n=21)

AbAVIQNorm (n=30)

Grade 1 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring

Kindergarten Grade 3 Grade 4 Spring Spring

VLG = Very Limited Grow thLG = Limited Grow thGG = Good Grow thVGG = Very Good Grow thWRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised

2727

Major Findings (cont’)Major Findings (cont’)

IQ scores did not:IQ scores did not: reliably differentiate struggling and normal reliably differentiate struggling and normal

readers. readers.

predict response to intervention. predict response to intervention.

predict reading growth in normal readers.predict reading growth in normal readers.

Language-based measures, especially Language-based measures, especially phonological measures did:phonological measures did:

reliably differentiate struggling and normal reliably differentiate struggling and normal readers.readers.

reliably differentiate difficult to remediate reliably differentiate difficult to remediate and readily remediated tutored children.and readily remediated tutored children.

2828

Kindergarten and First Grade Kindergarten and First Grade Intervention Study Intervention Study

(Spring 1997-Spring 2002)(Spring 1997-Spring 2002)

Major ObjectivesMajor Objectives

Evaluate the utility of remedial intervention for Evaluate the utility of remedial intervention for

“at risk” kindergarteners.“at risk” kindergarteners.

Further evaluate the RTI approach to identifying Further evaluate the RTI approach to identifying

children at-risk for early and long-term reading children at-risk for early and long-term reading

difficulties. difficulties.

2929

At-Risk Children

Continued Risk

Intervention

(n=232)

Comparison

(n=230)

Kin

der

gar

ten

Fir

st g

rad

e

No-Longer

at-Risk

Normal

Readers

Not-at-Risk

Children

(n=898)

Th

ird

g

rad

e

Difficult to

Remediate

Less Difficult

to Remediate

No-Longer

at-Risk

First Grade

Intervention

Above

Average IQ

K-intervention

Average

IQ

3030

Kindergarten ScreeningN=1373Letter identification (initial screening)Letter identification (initial screening)Phonological awareness (rhyme and alliteration)Phonological awareness (rhyme and alliteration)RAN object namingRAN object namingNumber identificationNumber identificationCounting by 1’sCounting by 1’s

Kindergarten InterventionN= 462Intervention n= 232Intervention n= 232Small groups, 2-3 days, weekly, 30min sessionsSmall groups, 2-3 days, weekly, 30min sessions

Comparison n=230Comparison n=230Small group instruction in some but not all schoolsSmall group instruction in some but not all schools

Intervention and comparison groups were equivalent on all screening measures

30%

Phoneme Awareness

Letter ID

Letter-Sound Association

Alphabetic Principle

Print Awareness

Print Conventions

Whole Word Identification

Text Reading

Ran

do

miz

ed D

esig

n

3131

Third grade Cognitive MeasuresThird grade Cognitive Measures

Rapid Naming (letter and objects)Rapid Naming (letter and objects)

Confrontational Naming Confrontational Naming

Verbal MemoryVerbal Memory

VocabularyVocabulary

Language ComprehensionLanguage Comprehension

Verbal and Non-verbal IntelligenceVerbal and Non-verbal Intelligence

First Grade InterventionFirst Grade Intervention

One-to-one Daily TutoringOne-to-one Daily Tutoring

Interactive Strategies ApproachInteractive Strategies Approach

3232

ResultsResults

3333

Kindergarten InterventionKindergarten Intervention

Project Treatment group performed Project Treatment group performed

significantly better than School-Based significantly better than School-Based

Comparison group on almost all emergent Comparison group on almost all emergent

literacy measures at the end of literacy measures at the end of

kindergarten.kindergarten.

Effect sizes consistently larger in schools Effect sizes consistently larger in schools

that provided no supplemental remedial that provided no supplemental remedial

services in kindergarten.services in kindergarten.

3434

Figure 3. Effect sizes for intervention/comparison groups (end Figure 3. Effect sizes for intervention/comparison groups (end of Kindergarten, no school-based remediation)of Kindergarten, no school-based remediation)

3535

First Grade InterventionFirst Grade Intervention

First Grade RTI GroupsFirst Grade RTI Groups Children who received both kindergarten and first grade Children who received both kindergarten and first grade

intervention. intervention. Difficult to Remediate (DR): < SS 90 on WRMT-R Basic Skills Difficult to Remediate (DR): < SS 90 on WRMT-R Basic Skills

Cluster (BSC) at the end of third gradeCluster (BSC) at the end of third grade Less Difficult to Remediate (LDR): Less Difficult to Remediate (LDR): SS 90 on WRMT-R BSC at the SS 90 on WRMT-R BSC at the

end of third gradeend of third grade

Comparison GroupsComparison Groups Children who received only kindergarten intervention Children who received only kindergarten intervention

and were no longer at risk (NLAR).and were no longer at risk (NLAR). Normal reader controls (AvIQNorm, AbAvIQNorm).Normal reader controls (AvIQNorm, AbAvIQNorm).

3636

Performance on Achievement Performance on Achievement MeasuresMeasures

NLAR and LDR groups performed within the average range NLAR and LDR groups performed within the average range

and above the DR group on all literacy measures at the and above the DR group on all literacy measures at the

end of first, second and third grade (see handouts).end of first, second and third grade (see handouts).

LDR group performed at levels comparable to NLAR group LDR group performed at levels comparable to NLAR group

on all literacy measures at the end of first, second, and on all literacy measures at the end of first, second, and

third grade. third grade.

DR group performed within the average or low average DR group performed within the average or low average

ranges on all literacy measures at the end of first grade, ranges on all literacy measures at the end of first grade,

but fell below average on all measures over second and but fell below average on all measures over second and

third grade. third grade.

3737

3838

84% of the at risk children became at least average level readers after 84% of the at risk children became at least average level readers after receiving only kindergarten intervention or both kindergarten and first grade receiving only kindergarten intervention or both kindergarten and first grade intervention. intervention.

Of those who became average level readers, 73% (72/98) received only Of those who became average level readers, 73% (72/98) received only kindergarten intervention.kindergarten intervention.

Growth in kindergarten literacy skills predicted continued risk status at the Growth in kindergarten literacy skills predicted continued risk status at the beginning of first grade with 90% accuracy and no-longer-at risk status with beginning of first grade with 90% accuracy and no-longer-at risk status with 87% accuracy.87% accuracy.

Adding a measure of change over the summer increased predictive accuracy Adding a measure of change over the summer increased predictive accuracy to 95% for continued risk status and 96% for no-longer-at-risk status. to 95% for continued risk status and 96% for no-longer-at-risk status.

3939

Results (contd’)Results (contd’)

IQ tests did not predict end of second and third IQ tests did not predict end of second and third

grade reading achievement following first grade grade reading achievement following first grade

intervention, but measures of growth in reading intervention, but measures of growth in reading

did do so.did do so.

IQ tests did not reliably differentiate continued risk, IQ tests did not reliably differentiate continued risk,

no-longer-at risk, and typical readers in first grade; no-longer-at risk, and typical readers in first grade;

verbal IQ did differentiate these groups in third verbal IQ did differentiate these groups in third

grade, but non-verbal IQ did not reliably do so.grade, but non-verbal IQ did not reliably do so.

The continued risk children generally performed The continued risk children generally performed

below the no-longer-at-risk and typical readers on below the no-longer-at-risk and typical readers on

measures of language-based skills. measures of language-based skills.

4040

A Comparison of Classroom (Tier 1) A Comparison of Classroom (Tier 1) Intervention Versus Small Group (Tier Intervention Versus Small Group (Tier

2) Intervention in Reducing the 2) Intervention in Reducing the Number of Children at Risk for Early Number of Children at Risk for Early

Reading DifficultiesReading Difficulties

Scanlon, Vellutino, Gelzheiser, Dunsmore, Scanlon, Vellutino, Gelzheiser, Dunsmore, Schatschneider, and others (study yet ongoing)Schatschneider, and others (study yet ongoing)

4141

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

Can Classroom (Tier 1) Intervention be Can Classroom (Tier 1) Intervention be

Effective in Preventing Early Reading Effective in Preventing Early Reading

Difficulties?Difficulties?

Can Professional Development Training Can Professional Development Training

Influence Teacher Effectiveness in Influence Teacher Effectiveness in

Preventing Early Reading Difficulties? Preventing Early Reading Difficulties?

4242

DesignDesign Participating schools (n = 14) were divided into three Participating schools (n = 14) were divided into three

matched groups on the basis of SES of the population matched groups on the basis of SES of the population served, risk status of entering kindergartners, and served, risk status of entering kindergartners, and performance on 4th grade measures of literacy skills in performance on 4th grade measures of literacy skills in participating schools.participating schools.

Each group of schools was randomly assigned to one of Each group of schools was randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions:three treatment conditions: Intervention OnlyIntervention Only: At risk kindergartners and first graders received : At risk kindergartners and first graders received

remedial services provided by project teachers.remedial services provided by project teachers.

Professional Development OnlyProfessional Development Only: Summer workshop and in-school : Summer workshop and in-school coaching along with ongoing discussion groups were provided for coaching along with ongoing discussion groups were provided for kindergarten and first grade teachers. kindergarten and first grade teachers.

Both Intervention and Professional Development.Both Intervention and Professional Development.

4343

In each school, three cohorts of entering In each school, three cohorts of entering kindergartners (K-2002, K-2003, & K-2004) were kindergartners (K-2002, K-2003, & K-2004) were followed until they reached second or third grade. followed until they reached second or third grade. Each cohort of children was treated differently:Each cohort of children was treated differently: Baseline Cohort – (K-2002-2003; n=718) - Baseline Cohort – (K-2002-2003; n=718) - DData collection ata collection

onlyonly

Implementation Cohort (K-2003-2004; n=728) - Implementation Cohort (K-2003-2004; n=728) - During During Kindergarten and First Grade: Kindergarten and First Grade:

Professional Development Training (PD-Tier 1).Professional Development Training (PD-Tier 1).

Project Interventions (K-Tier 2; Grade 1-Tier 3). Project Interventions (K-Tier 2; Grade 1-Tier 3).

Both PD-Tier 1 and Project Interventions (K-Tier 2; Grade Both PD-Tier 1 and Project Interventions (K-Tier 2; Grade 1- Tier 3). 1- Tier 3).

Maintenance Cohort (K-2004-2005; n=743).Maintenance Cohort (K-2004-2005; n=743). Project-based support discontinued for all kindergarten Project-based support discontinued for all kindergarten

and first grade classroom teachers who received and first grade classroom teachers who received professional development training (PD and PD+ PI). professional development training (PD and PD+ PI).

Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions continued for children in Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions continued for children in both PI only and PD + PI conditions.both PI only and PD + PI conditions.

4444

TreatmentsTreatments Kindergarten Small Group InterventionKindergarten Small Group Intervention – as in previous – as in previous Small Small

Group-Tier 2 study discussed. Group-Tier 2 study discussed. First Grade One-to-One InterventionFirst Grade One-to-One Intervention – as in previous – as in previous Tier 3 study Tier 3 study

discussed.discussed. Professional Development for Teachers: Professional Development for Teachers:

Summer workshops provided by project staff-(Kindergarten-3 days; First grade-4 Summer workshops provided by project staff-(Kindergarten-3 days; First grade-4 days).days).

Interactive Strategies Approach was presented and discussed; heavy emphasis Interactive Strategies Approach was presented and discussed; heavy emphasis was also placed on the development of: was also placed on the development of:

Oral language skillsOral language skills Comprehension strategiesComprehension strategies

Ongoing support from project staff for implementation: Ongoing support from project staff for implementation: Monthly after school meetings focusing on the instructional foundations and goals Monthly after school meetings focusing on the instructional foundations and goals

discussed during the summer workshops and implementation in a variety of discussed during the summer workshops and implementation in a variety of instructional settings.instructional settings.

In-class observation and feedback provided by master teachers (project staff) – five In-class observation and feedback provided by master teachers (project staff) – five times during the implementation year.times during the implementation year.

4545

Data Data Collected (All Cohorts)Collected (All Cohorts)

Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS): Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS): beginning and end of kindergarten; beginning of first beginning and end of kindergarten; beginning of first grade, and end of first, second, and third grade. grade, and end of first, second, and third grade.

Word Identification and Word Attack-(Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification and Word Attack-(Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement III): beginning and end of first Test of Achievement III): beginning and end of first grade; end of second and third grade.grade; end of second and third grade.

Reading and Listening Comprehension (Wechsler Reading and Listening Comprehension (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test): end of first, second, and Individual Achievement Test): end of first, second, and third grade.third grade.

Receptive Vocabulary-(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test): Receptive Vocabulary-(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test): kindergarten and end of first, second, and third grade.kindergarten and end of first, second, and third grade.

Verbal Intelligence-Information and Vocabulary subtests: Verbal Intelligence-Information and Vocabulary subtests: kindergarten and first grade (WPPSI) and end of second kindergarten and first grade (WPPSI) and end of second and third grade (WISC-III).and third grade (WISC-III).

4646

Data Data Collected (Continued)Collected (Continued)

Observations of classroom language arts instruction: five Observations of classroom language arts instruction: five times a year for kindergarten and first grade.times a year for kindergarten and first grade.

Teacher questionnaires and interviews: once a year for Teacher questionnaires and interviews: once a year for kindergarten and first grade.kindergarten and first grade.

Assessment of teacher effectiveness in terms of reductions Assessment of teacher effectiveness in terms of reductions in the proportion of children who qualified as at risk for in the proportion of children who qualified as at risk for reading difficulties as determined by literacy tests reading difficulties as determined by literacy tests administered at the beginning and end of the school year.administered at the beginning and end of the school year.

Teachers dichotomized into “Most Effective” and “Least Teachers dichotomized into “Most Effective” and “Least Effective” groups were compared on classroom program Effective” groups were compared on classroom program and practices.and practices.

Note: All data used to compare most and least effective Note: All data used to compare most and least effective teachers were collected prior to determination of teacher teachers were collected prior to determination of teacher effectiveness.effectiveness.

4747

Preliminary Results: Kindergarten Preliminary Results: Kindergarten Teacher Effectiveness (Baseline Teacher Effectiveness (Baseline

Cohort) Cohort) Results suggest that the most effective Results suggest that the most effective

kindergarten teachers, by themselves, can kindergarten teachers, by themselves, can significantly reduce the number of at risk significantly reduce the number of at risk children who continue to be at risk from the children who continue to be at risk from the beginning to the end of kindergarten.beginning to the end of kindergarten.

The most effective kindergarten teachers The most effective kindergarten teachers differed from the least effective teachers differed from the least effective teachers primarily in their success at moving children primarily in their success at moving children from the at-risk group to the no-longer-at-risk from the at-risk group to the no-longer-at-risk group.group.

4848

Percent of Children At-Risk for Reading Problems for Classrooms with Most or Least Effective Teachers

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pretest Posttest

Per

cen

t At-

Ris

k

Most Effective

Least Effective

4949

Pretest and Postest PALS Means for Classrooms with Most or Least Effective Teachers By Child's Risk Status

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pretest Posttest

Raw

Sco

re

At-Risk - Most Effective

Not At-Risk - Most Effective

At-Risk - Least Effective

Not At-Risk - Least Effective

Note: The most effective K teachers differ primarily in their success at

moving the at-risk kids.

5050

Classroom Practices of Most Classroom Practices of Most Effective TeachersEffective Teachers

Ability GroupingAbility Grouping Most Effective Teachers were more likely to Most Effective Teachers were more likely to

group students by ability for reading group students by ability for reading instruction.instruction.

They They also also spent more time teaching small spent more time teaching small ability based groups.ability based groups.

Skills OrientationSkills Orientation Most Effective Teachers were more likely to Most Effective Teachers were more likely to

explicitly teach decoding/encoding skills.explicitly teach decoding/encoding skills. They also spent more time teaching reading They also spent more time teaching reading

subskills such as phonological awareness, subskills such as phonological awareness, letter identification, letter sound decoding, letter identification, letter sound decoding, and sight word identification. and sight word identification.

5151

ContinuedContinued

Emphasis on Decoding as a Word Emphasis on Decoding as a Word Identification StrategyIdentification Strategy Most Effective Teachers were more likely to Most Effective Teachers were more likely to

encourage children to decode unfamiliar encourage children to decode unfamiliar words while reading text.words while reading text.

They They also also allocated more instructional time to allocated more instructional time to providing the children with the opportunity to providing the children with the opportunity to apply encoding/decoding strategies.apply encoding/decoding strategies.

They more often indicated that they had the They more often indicated that they had the materials to facilitate these reading materials to facilitate these reading opportunities.opportunities.

5252

ContinuedContinued

Developing Strategic Readers Developing Strategic Readers Most Effective Teachers were more likely toMost Effective Teachers were more likely to::

Encourage the use of a variety of strategies Encourage the use of a variety of strategies for word identification. for word identification.

They more often reported that They more often reported that comprehension strategy instruction is comprehension strategy instruction is appropriate in the primary grades.appropriate in the primary grades.

Most Effective teachers tended to spend more Most Effective teachers tended to spend more time on: time on:

Modeling and scaffolding. Modeling and scaffolding. Engaging the children in the Engaging the children in the

Question/Response/Feedback cycle.Question/Response/Feedback cycle. Encouraging the children to think and Encouraging the children to think and

respond.respond.

5353

To Summarize: TTo Summarize: The Most Effective he Most Effective Kindergarten Teachers Reported and Kindergarten Teachers Reported and

Demonstrated that they:Demonstrated that they: Group children by ability for at least a Group children by ability for at least a

portion of language arts instruction.portion of language arts instruction. Emphasize the development of facility with Emphasize the development of facility with

the alphabetic code and sight word the alphabetic code and sight word identificationidentification

Value strategy instruction.Value strategy instruction. Instruct through modeling and scaffolding.Instruct through modeling and scaffolding. Teach responsively – modify Teach responsively – modify classroom classroom

reading program (basals)reading program (basals) to best meet the to best meet the needs of the students.needs of the students.

Keep kids thinking Keep kids thinking andand actively engaged. actively engaged.

5454

Preliminary Results: Effects of Preliminary Results: Effects of Professional Development Professional Development

Training (Tier 1 Intervention) Training (Tier 1 Intervention) Compared with Small Group Compared with Small Group

Intervention (Tier 2) in Intervention (Tier 2) in KindergartenKindergarten

5555

Beginning of Kindergarten

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Intervention Only Professional Development Only PI + PD

Percentages of Students Qualifying as At Risk in Three Cohorts Under Three Experimental Conditions

* Risk is defined as falling below the Benchmark on the PALS.

5656

In all three conditions, a significantly In all three conditions, a significantly smaller percentage of students qualified smaller percentage of students qualified as at-risk at the end of kindergarten in as at-risk at the end of kindergarten in both the implementation and both the implementation and maintenance cohorts than in the baseline maintenance cohorts than in the baseline cohort, as measured by PALS cohort, as measured by PALS benchmarks.benchmarks.

The long term effects of Tier 1 The long term effects of Tier 1 intervention (PD only) and Tier 2 intervention (PD only) and Tier 2 intervention (PI only) were evident when intervention (PI only) were evident when the program was withdrawn.the program was withdrawn.

5757

Results from PD vs. PI vs. PD+PIResults from PD vs. PI vs. PD+PI

The PD (Tier 1) intervention was as effective as The PD (Tier 1) intervention was as effective as the PI (Tier 2) intervention in reducing the the PI (Tier 2) intervention in reducing the number of children who were at risk for early number of children who were at risk for early and long-term reading difficulties.and long-term reading difficulties.

The PD (Tier 1) and PI (Tier 2) interventions The PD (Tier 1) and PI (Tier 2) interventions combined were no more effective than either the combined were no more effective than either the PD (Tier 1) or PI (Tier 2) only interventions, quite PD (Tier 1) or PI (Tier 2) only interventions, quite likely because of ceiling effects on the PALS.likely because of ceiling effects on the PALS.

Thus, Tier 1 classroom intervention would Thus, Tier 1 classroom intervention would appear to be sufficient for addressing the needs appear to be sufficient for addressing the needs of most children who enter kindergarten at risk of most children who enter kindergarten at risk for early reading difficulties and in reducing the for early reading difficulties and in reducing the number of children who continue to be a risk at number of children who continue to be a risk at the end of kindergarten. the end of kindergarten.

5858

Provide Small Group Classroom (Tier 1) Instruction for lowest 30%

Accelerated Growth

Slow Growth or No Growth

Provide Very Small Group (Tier 2) Specialized Instruction

Slow Growth or No Growth

Accelerated Growth

Regular Classroom Instruction

Provide One-to-One (Tier 3) Specialized Instruction

Accelerated Growth

Slow Growth or No Growth

Continued-Risk—provide continued instruction

Possible Three Tiered Model of Intervention

5959

Implications and ConclusionsImplications and Conclusions

Early and long-term literacy difficulties can be prevented in Early and long-term literacy difficulties can be prevented in

most at risk children if they are:most at risk children if they are:

identified early in kindergarten. identified early in kindergarten.

provided with appropriate intervention to institute provided with appropriate intervention to institute

foundational literacy skills at the outset. foundational literacy skills at the outset.

Most at-risk children can profit from either supplementary Most at-risk children can profit from either supplementary

Tier 1 classroom intervention or small group (Tier 2) Tier 1 classroom intervention or small group (Tier 2)

intervention in kindergarten and become at least average intervention in kindergarten and become at least average

level readers in first grade and beyond.level readers in first grade and beyond.

Some will need intensive remedial intervention beyond Some will need intensive remedial intervention beyond

kindergarten or first grade in order to close the gap. A very kindergarten or first grade in order to close the gap. A very

small number will continue to need support; at least some small number will continue to need support; at least some

of these children may be classified as “reading disabled”. of these children may be classified as “reading disabled”.

6060

Continued use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to Continued use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to diagnose reading disability is unwarranted; in two separate diagnose reading disability is unwarranted; in two separate intervention studies we conducted, IQ tests: intervention studies we conducted, IQ tests:

did not reliably differentiate continued risk, no-longer-at did not reliably differentiate continued risk, no-longer-at risk, and typically achieving readers.risk, and typically achieving readers.

did not differentiate difficult to remediate and less did not differentiate difficult to remediate and less difficult to remediate readers.difficult to remediate readers.

did not predict long term reading achievement following did not predict long term reading achievement following intensive intervention, whereas initial response to such intensive intervention, whereas initial response to such intervention did do so. intervention did do so.

therefore, response to tiered intervention may be a more therefore, response to tiered intervention may be a more effective approach to identifying children at risk for effective approach to identifying children at risk for reading difficulties and possible reading disability status reading difficulties and possible reading disability status than is the IQ-achievement discrepancy. than is the IQ-achievement discrepancy.

Finally, three tiered intervention may also be an effective Finally, three tiered intervention may also be an effective model for addressing the individual needs of children model for addressing the individual needs of children representing a wide range of reading abilities, especially representing a wide range of reading abilities, especially those at risk for early and long term reading difficulties.those at risk for early and long term reading difficulties.

6161

A Lingering QuestionA Lingering Question

Identification of at-risk children, how Identification of at-risk children, how early? early?

First grade screening battery in K-1 study: First grade screening battery in K-1 study: at-risk children who had no supplementary at-risk children who had no supplementary intervention in kindergarten: intervention in kindergarten: 91% below average (true positives).91% below average (true positives). 9% at least average (false positives).9% at least average (false positives).

False positive rate more tolerable than False positive rate more tolerable than false negative rate.false negative rate.

Thus, identification at the beginning of Thus, identification at the beginning of kindergarten warranted.kindergarten warranted.

6262

Thank you!Thank you!