California Department of Education, Special Education Division’s special project, California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is funded through a contract with the Napa County Office of Education. CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds, State Grants #H027A080116A. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A070011) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U. S. Department of Education.

Effective Reading Intervention Academy (ERIA)
Program Overview and Summary Report 20090

The Effective Reading Intervention Academy (ERIA) supports schools in identifying struggling students, trains teachers in providing effective instruction and intervention to assist in improving specific student reading skills, and tools to monitor student progress throughout the year.

CalSTAT began working with local education agencies in 2004 to bring ERIA to school sites. Each cohort receives training and ongoing support. Sites in West Orange County and Antelope Valley piloted ERIA starting in the 2004-05 school year (Cohort 1), followed by San Joaquin Valley in 2005-06 (Cohort 2) and San Diego County in 2006-07 (Cohort 3). A series of scale-ups in 2007 and 2008 expanded the size of these cohorts from an original 10 sites each to a peak of 64 sites in the 2008-09 school year.

Several sites previously trained in ERIA did not participate in the 20090 school year, for various reasons. Additionally, due to an unanticipated reduction in funding, ERIA did not train any new sites. This facilitated a transition for ERIA, shifting to focus a more intense concentration of resources on a smaller number of sites. In 20101, each cohort will continue to support ten sites for one final year, joined by six new sites.

Distribution of ERIA Cohorts and Sites in California: In the 20090 school year, there were 59 active ERIA sites in 23 LEAs and 8 counties.

Cohort 1: Orange County and Antelope Valley (26 sites)
Cohort 2: Southern San Joaquin Valley (20 sites)
Cohort 3: Sand Diego County (13 sites)

Key Elements of ERIA

ERIA supports school sites in delivering differentiated instruction to students depending on need. Students who are falling behind or are at risk of falling behind in their reading levels are identified for intensified instruction in key areas to reach proficiency in English-language arts (ELA). As a program, ERIA seeks to embed key principles of evidence-based literacy education in schools throughout California.

The ERIA program includes four key elements:

Application of foundational elements of the response to instruction and intervention (RtI2) model.
Frequent and comprehensive assessment of student reading skills.
Delivery of evidence-based literacy intervention programs as necessary.
Systems change resulting in the sustainability of these best practices at sites.

Starting in the 20101 school year, ERIA sites are implementing a revised version of these elements, which are described in more detail in the ERIA Program Guide, which is available online at http://calstat.org/effectivereading.html

Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2)

ERIA trainings outline foundational elements of RtI2, including enhanced instructional practices, use of assessment tools and data, implementation of intervention programs, and year-round data-informed decision-making. While true RtI2 is far more rigorous than most ERIA sites currently have expertise or resources to implement, ERIA establishes these concepts and practices in schools and districts as a way of improving student outcomes. Additionally, many sites have already used ERIA as a foundation to pursue and achieve full RtI2 implementation.

Assessing Students

Assessment of student reading levels is key to making data-informed decisions about student placement and interventions. Data-informed decision-making involves examining existing data sources, such as scores from the California Standards Testing (CST), generating new benchmark data at regular intervals with a variety of measures, and interpreting this data against specific criteria. Two major skill areas are identified for assessment at most ERIA sites:

Oral Reading Fluency, an indicator of word-level reading skills.
Reading Comprehension, an advanced and fundamental reading skill.

Student assessment is only the first step in implementation of ERIA, but many sites report that it has its own inherently beneficial effects in securing faculty interest and staff buy-in, with some sites instituting regular faculty meetings to review student progress. Organizational culture at continuing ERIA sites appears to be shifting to make use of these newly-available sources of data, and sites are reporting that new attention to measurable outcomes has become a source of motivation at all levels.

Specific Reading Intervention Programs

Intervention delivers additional resources to students with additional needs drawing from one or more research-based literacy education programs. Once identified through assessment data, the specific skill needs of struggling readers are matched to an intervention program suited to teaching those needs. Decisions about student placement are made on a student-by-student basis and are guided by specific criteria which is developed at the site level, with guidance from literacy content experts.

Students who receive interventions continue to participate in the same core English-language Arts curriculum as students who aren’t struggling with reading. Interventions are delivered as additional support in the context of an elective, pull-out, or after-school class, helping struggling readers catch up with and succeed in the core curriculum.

Systems Change

The ERIA program cultivates structures and expertise at the site level which support and sustain these best practices. Implementation of ERIA revolves around a site team.

Site teams have also found ways to meet challenges to full, schoolwide implementation of ERIA’s key elements. For some sites, implementation has been delayed by a lack of resources to conduct comprehensive assessments, too few teachers trained in interventions, and not enough time for collaborative review of student progress. The involvement and support of administration, both at the school and at the district level, is regularly cited as a key factor in the successes of sites who are implementing at the highest levels and seeing the most concrete benefits.

Training and Ongoing Coaching

CalSTAT facilitates implementation of ERIA through two primary forms of support:

Training Events: Trainings with reading specialists are arranged for site teams from participating ERIA sites. These include comprehensive content trainings for new sites and booster trainings to provided additional and advanced content for both new sites and those already implementing ERIA. Selection of presenters and content is directed at the regional level and is responsive to the needs of each cohort.
Ongoing Coaching and Support: Regional coaches provide ongoing support for site teams throughout the year. These coaches also oversee each cohort and organize additional activities throughout the year and around trainings to facilitate an exchange of knowledge and successful strategies between site teams.

For many sites, the 20101 school year will transition into implementation without these external supports. Each cohort selected ten sites who could benefit from one additional year of support to establish full implementation, but proceeding into the future, ERIA will focus on developing the foundational elements of RtI2 at the secondary level (middle and high schools) with new sites.

Implementation of ERIA

The TIC is a 26 item checklist (items summarized on page 5) through which sites self-report implementation of explicit ERIA program criteria. Responses to each item are given as “achieved,” “in progress” or “not started,” and interpreted as 100%, 50% and 0% implementation, respectively.

An aggregated average of 80% or more is considered to be “fully implementing” ERIA (in Spring 2009, most items were in this category).
An average of at least 50% but less than 80% is considered to be “partially implementing.”
Below 50%, sites are considered to be “minimally implementing.”

The chart below shows the number of sites who are implementing ERIA at each of these levels over the past three years.

**Self-reported Implementation of ERIA**
	2007-08 School Year 47 sites	2008-09 School Year 64 sites	20090 School Year 59 sites
Full	28 sites, 60%	44 sites, 69%	49 sites, 83%
Partial	18 sites, 38%	12 sites, 19%	8 sites, 13%
Minimal	1 site, 2%	2 sites, 3%	1 site, 2%
No Data	0 sites, 0%	6 sites, 9%	1 site, 2%

The number of sites fully implementing has increased to 49 sites in Spring 2010.
From the previous spring, 5 sites advanced to full implementation, including 4 sites that advanced from partial and another from minimal implementation.
The five sites who did not continue participating in ERIA in 20090 were all sites who failed to complete a TIC the previous Spring.

Average Implementation

In Spring 2010, 23 of 26 checklist items are, on average, being fully implemented across all of ERIA, and no item averaged below 50%. This shows advancing implementation from Spring 2009, when only 21 items averaged above 80%.

**Average Implementation of ERIA Elements**
59 ERIA sites who submitted a TIC, 20090 school year
	Fall 2009	Spring 2010
A1. CST ELA Proficiency of each student is examined	98%	96%
A2. Decoding skills of students less than Proficient are assessed	94%	97%
A3. Fluency skills of students less than Proficient are assessed	97%	99%
A4. Comprehension skills of students less than Proficient are assessed	84%	88%
A5. Specific criteria exist for reading intervention placement	94%	97%
A6. Specific-skill reading intervention needs have been determined for the school as a whole, based upon student assessments	86%	92%
B1. Based upon the needs of the school, research-based specific-skill reading interventions have been purchased and are in place	90%	93%
B2. Staff have been trained in use of reading intervention programs	71%	85%
B3. Intervention placement criteria are used to match and exit students	88%	90%
B4. Students needing intervention(s) are receiving them regularly	84%	93%
B5. Reading intervention programs are being used with fidelity	75%	80%
B6. Periodic tests and/or measures from the intervention programs are being used to monitor student progress	84%	88%
C1. Initial assessment tests (decoding, fluency, etc.) are repeated regularly to inform the review of intervention placements	86%	97%
C2. Progress monitoring data are recorded and charted for ease of use	81%	87%
C3. Regular, collaborative review of individual student progress and intervention placements is occurring	78%	88%
C4. Multiple levels of interventions are provided ranging in intensity	86%	92%
D1. An ERIA Site Team is guiding implementation	85%	87%
D2. The school principal is active in leading ERIA implementation	88%	90%
D3. Site Team members communicate regularly (formally/informally)	89%	92%
D4. Coaching is provided to support implementation with fidelity	64%	67%
D5. Regular fidelity observations are done by administrators/coaches	61%	70%
D6. Ongoing professional development activities are taking place	77%	85%
D7. Time is provided for collaboration on a regular basis	85%	89%
D8. Schedule reflects required time to accommodate interventions	89%	93%
D9. The ERIA/RTI process is being implemented schoolwide	75%	82%
D0. The School Site ERIA program is part of a district-wide scale-up	68%	74%

Oral Reading Fluency

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) assesses a student’s mastery of word-level reading skills, helping to target delivery of interventions and supports. Each student reads three passages for a minute each and an observer notes the number of words read (“words correct per minute,” WCPM) and number of reading errors, both clues to skill needs.

Depending on each ERIA site’s needs and resources, some number of students were assessed at each participating school, from a few dozen students to the whole school. Because only a portion of students were assessed, this data should not be used to make judgments about the reading skills of students schoolwide. Assessments from Fall 2009 are reflected below.

	Grades 1-3 827 students assessed	Grades 4-5 3,023 students assessed	Grades 62 2,743 students assessed
More than 120 WCPM	87 students, 10%	846 students, 28%	1,196 students, 44%
70 to 120 WCPM	336 students, 41%	1,534 students, 51%	1,258 students, 46%
Less than 70 WCPM	404 students, 49%	643 students, 21%	289 students, 10%

Below 70 WCPM, a student probably has not yet mastered basic reading skills. Nearly 50% of the students assessed in Grades 1-3 demonstrated these needs, which may be appropriate for students in this age group. Students in higher grade levels who have not yet mastered these skills may need intensive, individualized intervention to reach ELA proficiency.
Between 70 and 120 WCPM, a student probably needs word-level skills intervention to become a fully fluent reader. Use of additional decoding and/or comprehension assessment may be useful to identify the most effective intervention programs to help these students reach ELA proficiency.
Above 120 WCPM, a student is probably a fluent reader. However, many fluent readers, especially those with low CST ELA scores, may lack essential comprehension skills. Addressing these needs within the core curriculum has always been a focus of ERIA, while additional comprehension interventions could also be useful to help these students reach ELA proficiency.

As the first cohort with the most participating sites, Cohort 1 made far more ORF assessments than Cohorts 2 and 3. Most assessments were made in Grades 4 and 5, though Cohort 1 was able to make slightly more assessments at the secondary level (Grades 6 and up) due to participation of a handful of middle schools implementing at an advanced level.

**ORF Assessments by Cohort**
	Cohort 1	Cohort 2	Cohort 3
Grades 62	2,243	415	85
Grades 4-5	1,708	864	451
Grades 1-3	790	26	11
Total	4,741	1,305	547

After an initial round of assessments to identify students who may not have their specific word-level reading skill needs met in the core curriculum, these “struggling readers” (120 WCPM or less) may receive intervention or other supports to build their skills. Only scores meeting integration criteria (both pre and post scores included on reading passages of appropriate grade level) were included below.

**Oral Reading Fluency WCPM Scores for "Struggling Readers"**
Fall 2009 (Pre) and Spring 2010 (Post) ORF Assessments for 3,705 Students Initially Assessed as Reading 120 WCPM or Less at 58 ERIA Sites
	Grades 1-3 694 "struggling readers" reading 120 WCPM or less		Grades 4-5 1,698 "struggling readers" reading 120 WCPM or less		Grades 62 1,313 "struggling readers" reading 120 WCPM or less
	Fall	Spring	Fall	Spring	Fall	Spring
More than 120 WCPM	n/a	263 students, 38%	n/a	669 students, 39%	n/a	588 students, 45%
7020 WCPM	318 students, 46%	347 students, 50%	1,226 students, 72%	893 students, 53%	1,087 students, 83%	619 students, 47%
Less than 70 WCPM	376 students, 54%	84 students, 12%	472 students, 28%	136 students, 8%	226 students, 17%	106 students, 8%

Over 1,257 of the 3,011 students (42%) in 4th grade or higher who were assessed with a fluency skill need at the beginning of the school year achieved scores of 120 WCPM or higher the following Spring.
The number of students assessed with the most severe needs, reading fewer than 70 WCPM, was reduced by more than two-thirds in grades 4-5 and by more than half in grades 62.

**Implementation of ERIA and ORF WCPM Scores at ERIA Sites**
		Implementation		Fall ORF Assessments			Spring ORF Assessments
		Fall 09	Spr 10	< 70	70 to 120	> 120	< 70	70 to 120	> 120
2004-05	Demille Elementary	60%	60%	23	90	53	15	58	93
	Ethel Dwyer Middle	100%	100%	29	104	60	7	84	102
	Marine View Middle	44%	41%	20	67	76	7	49	107
	Mesa View Middle	85%	87%	20	74	30	6	44	74
	Quartz Hill Elementary	--	--	129	283	202	20	151	443
	Spring View Middle	87%	91%	24	70	28	10	29	83
	Vista View Middle	100%	100%	53	304	358	31	160	524
	Webber Elementary	87%	87%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
2005-06	Alvina Elementary Charter	69%	81%	18	40	29	4	35	48
	Centerville Elementary	96%	89%	19	31	0	7	36	7
	Exeter High	87%	96%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Herbert Hoover High	62%	69%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	McLane High	71%	68%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Oakhurst Elementary	98%	98%	13	50	38	1	32	68
	Pioneer Elementary	94%	96%	18	73	96	6	50	131
	Ranchos Middle	96%	96%	7	34	7	1	23	24
	Sierra View Elementary	98%	98%	9	11	1	1	15	5
	Webster Elementary	100%	100%	20	49	3	5	51	16
	Wilson Middle	87%	87%	12	6	0	12	5	1
2006-07	Campo Elementary	94%	94%	6	46	35	2	25	60
	Clover Flat Elementary	78%	78%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Potrero Elementary	96%	96%	0	23	16	0	18	21
	Spring Valley Middle	91%	96%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Winter Gardens Elementary	91%	133%	12	30	14	3	20	33
2007-08	Circle View Elementary	79%	81%	3	10	3	1	9	6
	College View Elementary	85%	87%	9	1	0	6	4	0
	Finley Elementary	66%	93%	21	67	27	7	42	66
	Golden View Elementary	85%	85%	6	5	0	0	10	1
	Hope View Elementary	94%	94%	4	17	0	1	14	6
	Isaac L. Sowers Middle	77%	93%	7	20	9	2	15	19
	Jessie Hayden Elementary	66%	83%	23	100	97	10	45	165
	Johnson Middle	48%	93%	3	176	312	1	62	428
	Lake View Elementary	100%	100%	5	13	0	1	14	3
	Meairs Elementary	96%	93%	116	151	92	27	126	206
	Oak View Elementary	98%	100%	15	14	1	11	14	5
	Star View Elementary	94%	94%	6	15	12	0	15	18
	Sun View Elementary	85%	91%	6	12	1	2	12	5
	Top of the World Elementary	89%	91%	130	210	139	40	158	281
	Village View Elementary	98%	98%	14	48	10	2	30	40
	Westmont Elementary	93%	98%	19	42	17	4	30	44
2008-09	Bancroft Elementary	79%	93%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Barnett Elementary	56%	66%	19	14	0	6	24	3
	Descanso Elementary	71%	71%	4	11	2	2	13	2
	Edison-Bethune Charter Academy	83%	91%	38	17	0	6	37	12
	El Morro Elementary	89%	91%	43	40	0	5	61	17
	Frontier Elementary (opened 2008)	96%	96%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Jefferson Elementary	93%	93%	10	4	0	2	9	3
	Joseph R. Perry Elementary	87%	93%	31	18	0	5	36	8
	Kaweah High (Continuation)	98%	98%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Kempton Street Elementary	68%	98%	5	5	0	0	7	3
	La Presa Elementary	79%	93%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Las Palmas	85%	85%	29	48	2	14	57	8
	Lone Star Elementary	94%	94%	10	28	3	3	12	26
	Mariposa Special Education	50%	62%	26	34	9	11	44	14
	Pioneer Middle	89%	93%	1	26	2	1	18	10
	Riverview Elementary	52%	58%	5	27	2	4	28	2
	Stone Ranch Elementary (opened 2004)	71%	82%	data submitted did not meet aggregation criteria
	Wasuma Elementary	60%	79%	12	41	49	9	33	60
	Woodland Elementary	75%	79%	22	32	0	6	39	9

This may not accurately reflect specific ERIA sites. These data were filtered by aggregation criteria and omit key qualitative variables.

English-language Arts Proficiency

Monitoring English Language Arts (ELA) proficiency scores has been a focus of ERIA evaluation, just as it is a focus for all California schools. Proficiency is monitored annually through State Testing and Reporting (STAR), the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), and other annual testing. The chart below summarizes the median percent proficient and above of All Students and Students with Disabilities, a subgroup defined and monitored under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ERA sites are grouped by when they started ERIA, with the median test score represented in the chart.

**Implementation of ERIA and ORF WCPM Scores at ERIA Sites**
Percent Proficient or Above by Cohort
		2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
2004	All	44.9	51.3	54.8	55.7	61.5	62.0	63.6
2004	SwD	8.9	16.5	20.4	16.1	23.6	28.7	37.5
2005	All	40.1	46.2	53.8	50.8	59.1	59.0	58.3
2005	SwD	3.7	5.6	10.7	13.8	20.0	18.2	26.9
2006	All	32.2	36.2	35.6	43.7	46.2	49.4	50.4
2006	SwD	4.8	8.3	12.4	18.8	16.1	25.3	40.3
2007	All	44.5	56.6	57.3	55.2	55.2	60.6	62.9
2007	SwD	18.9	27.0	38.5	22.2	25.0	41.7	45.0
2008	All	38.2	43.4	46.4	48.6	51.0	59.1	60.3
2008	SwD	10.0	22.0	21.7	21.1	31.7	28.6	30.8
AMO Benchmark		12	23	23	23	34	45	56.0
CA	All	37.4	41.9	44.8	45.5	48.2	52.4	54.0
CA	SwD	14.7	17	19.5	20.7	24.1	30.7	32.4

ERIA cohorts have typically tracked with or exceeded growth in statewide proficiency over time, often showing improvements above statewide scores.
Proficiency for students with disabilities has been more volatile for schools in all cohorts, though there have been increases in the percent proficient overall.
Sites’ first year of implementing ERIA typically shows an increase in testing scores.

Test scores have been rising for schools generally statewide, as indicated by the statewide test scores. Schools are under pressure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets, which began increasing annually following the 2007 round of testing.

The strong first year of growth for newly trained ERIA sites continued as each original Cohort expanded.
The highly volatile nature of AYP data for Students with Disabilities is apparent in Cohort 3 expansion, which had a strong downturn in proficiency between 2009 and 2010. Because each year’s testing involves a different class of students, and because Students with Disabilities tend to be around 10% of a school population, this subgroup tends to fluctuate from year to year based on a wide range of factors.

ELA Outcomes at Individual School Sites

The tables on pages 12 and 13 include the percent proficient and above for ELA testing at all sites participating in ERIA in the 20090 school year. These testing outcomes are drawn from the annual AYP data files published by CDE, and highlight test scores in a baseline year (testing in the Spring before the site joined ERIA) and in 2010, with a sparkline that represents all data available going back to 2004.

Whereas the tables on pages 8 and 9 are based on data that is generated internally and, depending on which students are assessed and other factors, may not accurately reflect student outcomes, this ELA data is collected schoolwide under CDE guidelines and is aggregated and analysed by CDE. These outcomes are used to make determinations about school performance, including whether or not a school will go into Program Improvement. While these topics are discussed in greater detail on pages 14 and 15, as you look over ELA outcomes for individual schools, consider the AYP targets for 2010 and 2011, threshholds which indicate “Adequate Yearly Progress.”

**AYP Targets**
	2010 ELA Target	2011 ELA Target
Elem./Mid.	56.8%	67.6%
High School	55.6%	66.7%

**Implementation of ERIA and CST ELA Proficiency at ERIA Sites**
		Implementation		All Students							Students with Disabilities
		Fall 09	Spr 10	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
2004-05	Demille Elementary	60%	60%	38	40.5	41.6	41.7	43.4	47.7	53.8	25	22.9	19.4	27.8	25	29.6	25
	Ethel Dwyer Middle	100%	100%	58.2	62.8	63.5	66.1	68.9	74.2	76	10.2	22.2	28.9	24.3	28.2	47.2	50.9
	Marine View Middle	44%	41%	59.2	64.8	69.2	63.9	66.7	72.3	69.5	20	19.7	36.7	11.8	15.5	31	28.6
	Mesa View Middle	85%	87%	53.5	59.9	62.8	66.8	70.5	73	77.6	8.1	4.8	16.2	22.4	27.9	29.1	32.4
	Quartz Hill Elementary	--	--	42.9	50.1	49.8	47.9	47.3	54.8	57.7	6.1	18.5	21.4	13.6	23.9	29.8	40.6
	Spring View Middle	87%	91%	46.8	52.5	56.4	55.8	66.7	64.8	64.2	7.1	15	23	17.8	18.1	43.9	34.4
	Vista View Middle	100%	100%	39.4	48.6	53.1	55.5	56.3	61.2	63	3.4	8.1	18.8	12	11.1	23.3	41.3
	Webber Elementary	87%	87%	32.5	41.7	43	45.8	45	50.9	56.3	9.7	10.7	13.6	14.3	23.3	36.8	42.2
2005-06	Alvina Elementary Charter	69%	81%	29.5	33.1	32.9	30.4	34.2	43.2	45.9				21.1	25	41.2	31.6
	Centerville Elementary	96%	89%	28.7	34.9	42.4	46.2	59.1	63.2	59.1	8		20	17.4	27.8	29.4	35.3
	Exeter High	87%	96%	55	50.4	53.8	50.8	64.2	44.8	59.7		0	5.9		31.6	0
	Herbert Hoover High	62%	69%	42.2	43.6	42.5	42	50.6	39.7	47	3.7	4.5	12.7	5.2	7.9	13.5	10.2
	McLane High	71%	68%	22.4	22	26.8	22.3	30	24.4	24.7	1.5	5.6	10.7	6.3	8.1	2.8	17.9
	Oakhurst Elementary	98%	98%	37.9	48.7	54.2	53	51	62.5	58.3				31.8	20	42.1	40
	Pioneer Elementary	94%	96%	56.4	60.1	63.1	61.9	60.3	67.5	68.3	34.6	35.9	37.5	44.7	55	47.2	50
	Ranchos Middle	96%	96%	46.1	56.1	57.7	60	61.9	66.8	64.6		15	5.9	5	9.5	26.1	26.9
	Sierra View Elementary	98%	98%	47.4	45.7	54.9	55.9	61.1	59.3	65.3	28.5	38.9	0	15.4	15.4	0	36.4
	Webster Elementary	100%	100%	55.2	59.4	62.1	59.3	62.6	68.9	56	4.7	3.8	10.5	12.1	25	12.5	17.9
	Wilson Middle	87%	87%	33.4	37.8	45.3	47	48.1	51	47	11.1	18.8	21.2	6.1	2.9	18.2	14
2006-07	Campo Elementary	94%	94%	32.2	36.2	35.6	45.8	48.9	50.9	50.4	17.3	19	22.2	21.4	18.8	39	46
	Clover Flat Elementary	78%	78%	27.5	28.8	37.5	44.1	38.3	60.3	64.9	5.5	5	29.4
	Potrero Elementary	96%	96%	19.8	19.8	28	38.5	29.2	26.5	25		8.3	0
	Spring Valley Middle	91%	96%	42.5	42.4	46.4	43.7	46.2	51.1	51.7	9.5	4.8	11.4	16.1	7.1	18	39.3
	Winter Gardens Elementary	91%	133%	24.2	28.4	33.3	36.3	39.6	37.6	37.2		9.5	13.3		15.4	23.5	41.2
2007-08	Circle View Elementary	79%	81%	68.5	81.3	83.1	81.3	83.1	81.8	83.3	40.5	58.6	61.1	60.6	48.7	57.6	52.4
	College View Elementary	85%	87%	44.4	57.5	53.6	48.9	49.8	60.9	71.5	36.8	37.9	39.1	33.3	23.5	34.6	45
	Finley Elementary	66%	93%	22	24.5	33.4	31.6	28.8	38	41.5	5.7	11.9	7.9	0	3.2	31	20
	Golden View Elementary	85%	85%	54.7	63.4	57.3	57.3	58.7	60.6	62.9	16.6	27	21.6	22.2	25	47.5	41.7
	Hope View Elementary	94%	94%	63.9	68.3	72.9	75.8	78	83	80.1	27.7	38.8	59.3	46.9	57.1	66.7	60
	Isaac L. Sowers Middle	77%	93%	62.7	67.3	71	72.9	70.1	75.1	76.9	15.1	20.4	37.8	31.1	32	52.4	47.2
	Jessie Hayden Elementary	66%	83%	50.6	56.6	59.4	55.2	55.9	61.7	65.5	19.5	38.5	50	42.9	55.6	47.6	45.5
	Johnson Middle	48%	93%	37.1	38.9	42	40.1	45.8	52.1	52.6	18.9	5.6	12.8	15.6	17.6	37	32.7
	Lake View Elementary	100%	100%	44.5	48.1	51	49	52.7	51	51	20.5	17.1	42.4	21.2	37.9	46.3	48.1
	Meairs Elementary	96%	93%	30.2	37.9	40.9	47.4	45.9	48.5	57.1	7.6	6.3	6.3	13.6	10.3	17.2	21.4
	Oak View Elementary	98%	100%	19.8	25.1	32	37	36.7	34.5	37.3	16.6	11.1	12	21.9	12.9	20	32.5
	Star View Elementary	94%	94%	53.7	63.3	65.2	63.2	66	63.7	71.3	21	42.9	43.8	17.4	33.3	41.7	54.2
	Sun View Elementary	85%	91%	41.4	44.1	52.2	58.8	43.7	48	56.4	6.6	0	15.4	37.9	22.7	29.8	48.1
	Top of the World Elementary	89%	91%	65.6	73.2	78.7	76.9	79.1	78.8	80.3	23.5	40	50		56.8	48.8	50
	Village View Elementary	98%	98%	68	68.9	74.4	71.3	69.3	71.5	72	44	43.8	38.5	44.7	48.6	53.5	31.2
	Westmont Elementary	93%	98%	40.8	43.2	59.1	54	55.2	52.4	45.8	10.5	28.6	42.9	20	25	22.6	19.1
2008-09	Bancroft Elementary	79%	93%	28.8	34.8	31.7	42.1	35.9	40.3	44.4	2.6	8.8	12.2	18.2	26.9	37.5	28.6
	Barnett Elementary	56%	66%	53.9	61.2	63.4	66.1	64.2	59.8	65.7	19.6	25	27.9	27.9	41.3	33.3	36.5
	Descanso Elementary	71%	71%	48.5	61.4	67	56.7	65	75	75		0			16.7
	Edison-Bethune Charter Academy	83%	91%	14.6	17	17.2	20.8	27.4	35.7	39.8					9.5	14.3	25
	El Morro Elementary	89%	91%	62.8	71.3	75.4	73.6	74.1	73.5	77.5	11.7	31.8	60		50	44.7	38.1
	Frontier Elementary (opened 2008)	96%	96%						70.7	70.7						52.8	65
	Jefferson Elementary	93%	93%	15.8	28.9	43.8	46	49.1	60	57.3	6	23.5	8.3	17.6	21.2	28.6	19.2
	Joseph R. Perry Elementary	87%	93%	35.2	45.1	45.4	51.1	51.9	49.8	54.2	11.7	4.8	23.8	18.8	20.5	35.1	29.1
	Kaweah High (Continuation)	98%	98%		30.8				0
	Kempton Street Elementary	68%	98%	24.5	24.7	25.9	36.2	38	36	31.7		3.6	3.7	4.3	10.8	20.8	15.4
	La Presa Elementary	79%	93%	38.2	36.5	35.4	42.6	31.3	38.8	38.7	13	11.4	16.1	22.2	12.5	16.4	14.6
	Las Palmas	85%	85%	25.4	29.3	33.6	40.7	40.6	47.9	51.9	12.5	21.5	21.7	27	36.8	70.8	76.1
	Lone Star Elementary	94%	94%	31.9	43.4	44.7	42.4	51.8	55.2	62.3	8.3		0	30	41.7	21.7	27.6
	Mariposa Special Education	50%	62%	n/a									16.6	21.3	15.2	31.2	43
	Pioneer Middle	89%	93%	52.1	56	61.4	60.9	60.7	63.9	62.6	10	24.1	23.1	28	36.5	30.6	30.8
	Riverview Elementary	52%	58%	44.7	42.6	47.3	42.5	50.2	52.3	56.6	8.8	13.2	27.3	36	43.3	31	21.9
	Stone Ranch Elementary (opened 2004)	71%	82%		72.7	74.1	79.7	81.8	85.7	88.9		48.8	49.1	51.5	37	45.9	58.7
	Wasuma Elementary	60%	79%	50.7	57.3	54	54.1	53.9	60.6	60.3	4.1			8	0	28	35.3
	Woodland Elementary	75%	79%	46	54	55.5	54.1	48.8	65.8	68.3	18.3	38.9	10.9	20	7.1	42.3	47.1

Accountability Progress Reporting

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets are used to determine whether a school is showing sufficient student outcomes according to No Child Left Behind (NCLB). As stated by the Education Data Partnership (a collaboration citing the participation of CDE, EdSource, and the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team):

In 2010, faced with an 11 percentage point increase in the number of students expected to score proficient or above on state assessments, fewer elementary and middle schools made AYP than in 2009. Forty percent of elementary schools made AYP in 2010 compared with 61% in 2009 and 26% of middle schools made AYP compared with 27% in 2009. (The state did not release similar AYP results for high schools after statewide graduation data became available.)

Meanwhile, ERIA sites had considerably more success in meeting the 2010 target than other schools in California. In 2010, the following number of ERIA sites met the target:

24 of 43 ERIA elementary schools (56%, compared to 40% statewide)
8 of 11 ERIA middle schools (73%, compared to 26% statewide)
1 of 3 ERIA high schools (33%)

Of the 57 ERIA sites for whom data is available, immediately prior to joining ERIA only 17 were showing test scores equal to the 2010 target of roughly 56% proficient or above. However, by improving student ELA outcomes (in part by participating in ERIA), 33 sites were achieving test scores at this level by the time they were accountable for the 2010 target.

**ERIA Sites Meeting 2010 AYP Target in Baseline Year and in 2010**
57 Sites for which Percent of All Students Proficient and Above in English Language Arts were available Baselines are drawn from testing the Spring before each site joined ERIA
	Baseline Year	2010
Above Target	17 sites, 30%	33 sites, 58%
Below Target	40 sites, 70%	24 sites, 42%

	2004		2005		2006		2007		2008		2009		2010
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
2004-05 (8 sites)	2	25%	3	38%	3	38%	3	38%	4	50%	5	63%	6	75%
2005-06 (11 sites)			2	18%	3	27%	3	27%	6	55%	6	55%	6	55%
2006-07 (5 sites)					0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1	20%	1	20%
2007-08 (16 sites)							8	50%	7	44%	9	56%	10	63%
2008-09 (17 sites w/data)									5	26%	9	47%	11	59%

The Academic Performance Index (API) is “a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000, which reflects a school’s, an LEA’s, or a subgroup’s performance level based on the results of statewide testing.” Unlike the English-language Arts data summarized on pages 10-13 or the AYP targets summarized on page 14, the API score integrates data from a variety of tests in a variety of subject areas to create a comprehensive picture of academic outcomes at a site. The statewide performance target for API is 800, which all schools are expected to meet by 2014.

ERIA sites have shown considerable growth in API scores since joining ERIA, by as many as 74 points at schools starting in 2004-05. Currently, the median API Base score for each ERIA class is above 800, except for the sites starting in the 2006-07 school year, which have still showed progress toward the target.

**Media API Base Scores at ERIA Sites**
	API in Basline Year	API in 2010
2004-05 (8 sites)	764	838
2005-06 (11 sites)	736	811
2006-07 (5 sites)	736	765
2007-08 (16 sites)	830	848
2008-09 (19 sites)	783	820

Program Improvement

Schools which are determined to not be making Adequate Yearly Progress (of which ELA AYP targets are one criteria) may be subject to Program Improvement (PI), under which they are responsible for implementing certain federal and state requirements. CDE summarizes the process for making PI determinations as follows:

A Title I school will be identified for PI when, for each of two consecutive years, the Title I school does not make AYP in the same content area (English-language arts [ELA] or mathematics) schoolwide or for any numerically significant subgroup, or on the same indicator (Academic Performance Index [API] or high school graduation rate) schoolwide. [http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tidetermine.asp]

The progress ERIA sites have made to reach ELA targets ahead of schedule has been one factor in keeping many ERIA sites from entering PI.

While AYP targets have increased by over 30 percentage points for schools since testing in 2007, 30 ERIA sites remained definitively Not in PI in the 2010-11 school year, and only 6 are currently in PI.
9 sites did not have a PI status described in any year, probably indicating that they are not Title I schools, the most common reason a school isn’t PI-eligible.

The tables on pages 12-13 details the specific percentage of All Students and Students with Disabilities proficient and above in Spring 2010 testing at all 57 sites for which data was available and which participated in ERIA through the 2009-10 school year.

The Future of ERIA

The 2009-10 school year was the last year ERIA operated under the original framework that sites were introduced to in 2004. In the past six years, research and practice of tiered interventions and RtI2 have advanced considerably, and it became possible to refine and refocus the specific practices implemented through ERIA. In response to feedback from ERIA coordinators and educators, the SPDG Evaluation Team worked in close consultation with ERIA content experts to develop and document a new and enhanced ERIA framework.

The new ERIA is described in two complimentary documents which have been distributed to all continuing ERIA sites, as well as more widely throughout the state and the nationwide network of State Personnel Development Grants (SPDGs). These documents are:

ERIA: Effective Reading Interventions Academy, A Pathway Towards RtI2: A Program Guide http://calstat.org/pdf/ERIA_ProgGuide_Dec10.pdf
ERIA Implementation Rubric http://calstat.org/pdf/ERIA_Rubric.pdf

In addition to these revised ERIA practices, ERIA is now delivering an enhanced package of supporting and sustaining activities to compliment its training events. A second regional contractor, a cohort coach, has now been added to compliment the coaching and organizing activities of the regional coordinator which was already in place. Cohort coaches are funded sufficiently to provide close support to ERIA sites in implementing ERIA practices with fidelity, including site visits.

With ERIA practices firmly in place in most existing ERIA sites, only ten existing ERIA sites were selected in each of the three regional ERIA cohorts for a final year of training and coaching to help cement ERIA practices. These 30 sites will join the other 29 ERIA graduate sites and exit the program after the 2010-11 school year.

ERIA has also shifted its focus away from elementary schools, where tiered interventions and RtI2 are becoming more common practices, towards middle and high schools, where they have not. ERIA continued in the 2010-11 school year by recruiting 17 new ERIA sites across the three regional cohorts, including 11 high schools and 5 middle schools. Plans are in place to add an additional 24 new ERIA sites, including the founding of a new regional cohort with six new schools. ERIA is scheduled to train and support new sites over three years, at which point each school is expected to graduate with sustainable, evidence-based practices firmly in place.

This document was developed for CalSTAT by the SPDG Evaluation Team of Cheryl “Li” Walter, PhD, and Alan Wood.

CalSTAT (California Services for Technical Assistance and Training), at Napa County Office of Education, is a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division. Visit CalSTAT at http://www.calstat.org.

“California Department of Education, Special Education Division’s special project, California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is funded through a contract with the Napa County Office of Education. CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds, State Grants #H027A080116A. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A070011) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA). This project is supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.”

CalSTAT Technical Assistance and Training

Effective Reading Intervention Academy (ERIA) Program Overview and Summary Report 20090