Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium

December 4-5, 2003 * Kansas City, Missouri

The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The speakers, discussants, and participants assembled represented the wide diversity of individuals with a vested interest in LD determination issues. Advocates, instructional staff, researchers, and state-level education officials brought their collective and considerable expertise to the discussions.

W. David Tilly III of Heartland Area Education Agency in Johnston, Iowa, presented this invited paper during the symposium. For links to other papers and materials, visit the main Symposium 2003 page.


How Many Tiers Are Needed for Successful Prevention and Early Intervention?
Heartland Area Education Agency's Evolution from Four to Three Tiers

Previous Page | Next Page
Nonsense Words | Fluency Gains

Results of a Three Tiered Model Implementation:
The Heartland Early Literacy Project (HELP)

Results: Oral Reading Fluency Raw Score Gains for First Grade Students

In addition to the NWF data and PSF data, Oral Reading Fluency data were collected for first through third grade. The box plot graphics that are presented in Figures 4 through 7 represent project data across all participating schools. A different number of schools are included in each year's data. That is, during the first year, there were 36 schools' data included, all of whom were in year 1 of project implementation. In the fourth year, 121 schools data are represented in the box plots, representing schools in their first, second, third and fourth year of implementation. As a result of this mixing of student data across project years, it is likely that the displays systematically underestimate the magnitude of project effects due to dilution of treatment effects.

Despite this cohort-effect limitation, end of first-grade oral reading fluency has improved systematically across the four project years. A slight decrease in year 4 oral reading fluency rates across the project was noted. At this time, it is unclear whether this decrease is a cohort effect attributable to new schools joining the project or whether it is attributable to some other factor. Because the mid-year data for the fourth implementation year also show this apparent decline, a cohort effect is plausible. Additional analysis is underway to combine project schools' data by project year. This modification should provide a clearer picture of project effects.


Figure 4: Oral Reading Fluency Raw Score Gains for First Grade Students.

Figure 4: Oral Reading Fluency Raw Score Gains for First Grade Students

Note. This graphic was generated by the University of Oregon DIBELS website and modified


Figure 5: Oral Reading Fluency Raw Score Gains for Second Grade Students.

Figure 5: Oral Reading Fluency Raw Score Gains for Second Grade Students

Note. This graphic was generated by the University of Oregon DIBELS website and modified


Figure 6. Oral Reading Fluency Raw Score Gains for Third Grade Students.

Figure 6: Oral Reading Fluency Raw Scre Gains for Third Grade Students

Note. This graphic was generated by the University of Oregon DIBELs website and modified


Previous Page | Next Page
Nonsense Words | Fluency Gains

IDEAs that Work logo

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.