Planning for the Implementation of RTI:
Lessons Learned from Project MP3
Edward S. Shapiro
Director,
Center for Promoting Research to Practice
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
Initial Planning Stage
 Implementation would require change
 Rethink how instructional decisions made
 Change is difficult!
 Comprehensive planning was critical to success of project
 Selection of Schools
 Roll out of Model
 Professional development and training
 Sustainability
 Preparation began several months prior to implementation
Assessing Readiness for Change
 Prior to planning, evaluated district’s level of readiness
 “Creative Tension” (Green & Ethridge, 2001) evident
 District administration recognized importance of RTI
 Internal evaluation- current practices not sufficient
 RTI implemented in only 1 of 13 schools
 DIBELS data collected but not used
Year Prior to Implementation
Develop Model
Meet with District
Administration
Meet with Building
Administration
Meet with School 1
Staff
Meet with School 2
Staff
Meet with School 3
Staff
First Year of Implementation
Professional Development
For School 1
Training with
Core Team
Coaching
No Intervention for School 2 and School 3
Consultation and
Support
Second Year of Implementation
Professional Development Session with All Schools
Schools 2 & 3
PD Sessions
Core Team
Training
Coaching
Consultation
and Support
Core Team
Teaching
Coaching
Consultation
and Support
Professional DevelopmentSchool 1
• School year prior to implementation
– 4- 45 minute sessions with entire staff
• Summer prior to implementation
– 5 days with data team
– 2 days with entire staff prior to start of school
• During first implementation year
– 7- 45 minute sessions throughout school year
– 2- 2 hour in-services
– 1- full day training
Professional DevelopmentSchools 2 & 3
• School year prior to implementation
– 1- 2 hour in-service with entire staff
– 2- 45 minute sessions with staff
– 1-full day training
• Summer prior to implementation
– 5 days with data team
– 2 days with entire staff prior to start of school
• During first implementation year
– 2- 2 hour in-services
– Training conducted by district staff at additional professional
development sessions
Initial Planning Meeting
 Held 8 months prior to implementation in schools
 All stakeholders involved
 Key administrators from district
 PaTTAN
 Project Staff
 Discussed topics related to planning
 Overview of model
 Proposed timeline
 Identified participating schools
 School level needs
 Readiness for change
 Building leadership
 Presentation of Model to schools
Meeting with Principals
 Met with principals from three participating schools
 Provided overview of model
 Question and Answer
 Discussed Professional Development Needs
 Discussed how to present to staff
Staff Meetings
 Met with teachers at each building
 Provided overview of project
 Question and Answer
 Teachers completed staff development survey
 Results used to plan future professional developments
Professional Development
 Ongoing throughout the course of project
 Attempted to provide as much training prior to
implementation as possible
 Started with four 45 minute sessions held in Spring of
year prior to implementation
 Session 1:Overview and Question and Answer
 Session 2-4: Developed based on results of needs assessment
Professional Development
 Results of PD surveys indicated that teachers wanted
additional training in use of data to make instructional
decisions
 PD sessions focused on
 Rationale for data-based decision making
 Methods for using data to guide instruction
 Opportunities to practice
Additional Professional Development
 Week long training in summer for data team
 Data team members to serve as facilitators
 Principal, Reading Specialist, Instructional Support Teacher, School
Psychologist, Key Teachers 1 per grade, 1 Special Ed teacher
 Training topics
 Progress Monitoring
 AIMSweb
 Data Analysis and Interpretation
 Data-based decision making
Additional Professional Development
 Two day training for all staff at start of school year
 Progress monitoring
 5 Big Ideas of reading instruction
 Interventions: Tiered interventions
 Provided multiple opportunities for discussion and practice
 Met with some resistance
 Teacher concerns –
 “Can’t make decisions off of numbers.”
 “How can we fit this in a day of school?”
 “How much time will we waste moving kids around the school?”
 “Extra work placed on classroom teacher, like progress monitoring?”
Additional Professional Development
 Additional sessions held throughout the school year
 Contracted 2 meetings per month prior to school- One was
grade level meeting, One was professional development
 Differentiated Instruction
 Vocabulary Instruction
 AIMSweb
 Advanced data analysis
 Interventions
 Sessions conducted by school staff to promote sustainability
 Worked with Reading Specialist, IST with our help and support so
they could continue after we left
Professional Development Sessions
 Skills built upon those presented in the past
 reviewed info from past sessions
 provided practice with learned skills
 introduced new information
 In vivo training and support provided throughout the course of
the project
 Always followed didactic with in-classroom mentoring, coaching,
modeling
 Not always Lehigh staff, could also be district personnel with our support
 Needs assessed and support faded when possible to facilitate
sustainability
Assessment of Readiness
 Use the RTI Readiness and Implementation Self-Assessment
 Staff at school rate the components
 We also rated each school
 Ratings represent collective viewpoints of primary
stakeholders
RTI Self Assessment ToolSchool 1 – Implemented 2 years
 Standards Aligned Curriculum
 Universal Screening
 Shared Ownership
 Data-based Decision making
 Tiered Interventions
 Parent Engagement
 Behavior
 Eligibility Determination
 Leadership
 Professional Development
SA
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.3
1.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
SA= Self Assessment; PSS= Project Staff Assessment
PSS
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.4
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
2.7
3.0
RTI Self Assessment ToolSchool 2 – Implemented 1 year
 Standards Aligned Curriculum
 Universal Screening
 Shared Ownership
 Data-based Decision making
 Tiered Interventions
 Parent Engagement
 Behavior
 Eligibility Determination
 Leadership
 Professional Development
SA
2.3
3.0
2.5
2.8
3.0
1.8
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
SA= Self Assessment; PSS= Project Staff Assessment
PSS
2.3
2.7
1.0
2.0
2.2
2.3
1.2
2.0
2.3
2.2
RTI Self Assessment ToolSchool 3 – Implemented 1 year
 Standards Aligned Curriculum
 Universal Screening
 Shared Ownership
 Data-based Decision making
 Tiered Interventions
 Parent Engagement
 Behavior
 Eligibility Determination
 Leadership
 Professional Development
SA
2.8
3.0
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.3
1.6
2.5
3.0
2.6
SA= Self Assessment; PSS= Project Staff Assessment
PSS
2.8
2.7
3.0
3.0
2.8
1.3
1.4
2.5
2.7
2.2
Disclaimer
This webinar was made possible by the support of the U.S.
Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs.
Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of
Education.