1
Julie Esparza Brown, EdD
Portland State University
Linda I. Rosa Lugo,EdD, CCC/SLP
University of Central Florida


What is RTI?

What does an RTI process for ELs look like?

How do cultural, linguistic, and experiential differences impact instruction and intervention?

How does the RTI process help to determine difference vs. disability? Is a comprehensive special education evaluation still necessary in this model?

What competencies do education professionals need to support EL students through the RTI process?
2

“ Rigorous implementation of RTI includes a combination of high quality, culturally and linguistically responsive instruction; assessment; and evidence-based intervention. Comprehensive
RTI implementation will contribute to more meaningful identification of learning and behavioral problems, improve instructional quality, provide all students with the best opportunities to succeed in school, and assist with the identification of learning disabilities and other disabilities.
”
National Center on Response to Intervention
3

• One major goal of RTI is to improve the learning outcomes for all students and reduce the number of students inappropriately identified as having a specific learning disability by intervening early in their educational process.(Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, 2004, Part B, Sec 614
(b)(6)(b)).
• RTI is conceptualized as a tiered model of increasingly intense instructional support to match students ’ needs.
• The most common models currently are in reading.
4

An RTI Model for English
Learners intensive evidence-based
Intervention, includes oracy component
(5% of all students)
Core plus strategic evidence-based intervention; “ double dose ” ; must include oracy component
(15% of all students)
Core curriculum & instruction for ALL students: school-wide reading, behavior, math and/or writing, includes sheltered and linguistically appropriate instruction and culturally relevant teaching (80% of all students disaggregated by subgroups)
For ELS: Core includes English as a Second
Language Services
P re-teach critical vocabulary; PLUSS teaching for transfer

• Evidence-based core curriculum; goal is for all students to reach grade-level benchmarks. Assumes effective instruction in core for all students.
• Universal screening in foundational components of reading (or math) to determine who is at-risk for reading difficulties.
• Intervening early in reading (or math) with increasingly intense evidence-based interventions taught with fidelity.
• Use screening and progress monitoring data to determine students ’ responsiveness to instruction/intervention and progress towards gradelevel benchmarks and standards
6

RTI Feature
•
Evidence-based core curriculum and instruction for all students to meet grade-level standards.
• Universal screening in foundational components of reading (or math) to determine who is at-risk for reading difficulties.
Concern for ELs
• Limited core curriculum that adjusts instruction to meet EL students ’ language levels; educators often lack basic competencies in working with ELs
• Must determine the reliability and validity of screening tools used with
ELs
7

RTI Feature Concern for ELs
• Intervening early in reading (or math) with increasingly intense evidence-based interventions taught with fidelity.
• Use screening and progress monitoring data to determine students ’ responsiveness to instruction/intervention and progress towards grade-level benchmarks and standards
• Limited intervention programs that have been researched on
English Learners (e.g., What
Works Clearinghouse).
• Assessment tools must be reliable and valid for use with
ELs, ELs cannot be expected to meet grade-level benchmarks within the time frame as
English-only students
8

9

• The National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES, 2011) reports the number of English
Learners (ELs) in public schools rose from 4.7 to
11.2 million between 1980 and 2009 (a 21% increase).
• ELs are a diverse group representing more than
425 languages, yet what defines them is their need for specialized language support to fully participate in English-only educational programs (Goldenberg, 2008).
• Of all ELs, 80 percent are Spanish-speakers
(Goldenberg, 2008).
10

• The majority of them are U.S. born and have received all of their education in
American schools.
• ELs achieve oral fluency in everyday language but lag in measures of academic success and tasks requiring academic language proficiency.
• The term “ EL ” student does NOT include fluent bilingual students.
11

12
Are ALL Educators Prepared to Teach ELs? How
About You?
• In 2002, the National
Center for Educational
Statistics found that among 41% of U.S. teachers with EL students only 12.5% had received 8 or more hours of PD in instruction of ELLs.

Three Categories of ELs who Experience
Academic Difficulties
1.
Those with ineffective instructional programs and environments
▫ Instruction is not appropriately adjusted to student ’ s language needs
2.
Difficulties due to life circumstances
▫ Interrupted schooling, limited formal education, mobility, limited access to standard
English, etc.
3.
EL students with intrinsic and true disorders
13

14

BICS = Basic
Interpersonal
Communication Skills
CALP = Cognitive
Academic Language
Proficiency (Cummins,
2000)
C
A
L
P
B
I
C
S
Language:
The Big Picture
Pre-Production
Early Production
Speech Emergence
Intermediate Fluency
Hands-on instruction
Emergent readers
Emergent writers
Predictable books
Copying
Everyday communication
Unedited speech
Instant clarification of concept
possible
Playground conversation
Contextualized, concrete
Limited vocabulary
Two to three years to attain
Advanced Fluency
Academic language
Expository, formal language
Decontextualized, abstract
Required for literacy
Absence of features normally presented
in conversational discourse
Three to ten (or more) to attain
Standardized tests
Content areas
State assessments
15

16
• Language proficiency needed in order to function in everyday interpersonal contexts and carry on a conversation in familiar face-to-face situations:
▫ greetings
▫ words of courtesy
▫ numbers/calculations
▫ playground conversation

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP)
• Level of language needed to function in decontextualized, academic settings where students are required to understand linguistically and conceptually demanding texts in content areas and to use this language in an accurate and coherent way in their own writing.
▫ Language required for:
▫ solving mathematical word problems
▫ reading academic texts
▫ taking tests
• To develop academic language proficiency requires extensive reading of texts to expand vocabulary knowledge and demystify language structures.
• Typically attained between five to seven years in host country but up to eleven years when native language is not used for instruction
(Thomas & Collier, 2002) .
17

• a person's competence in processing
(through listening and reading) and using
(through speaking and writing) language
(WIDA ELD Standards, 2012)
• Language proficiency alone will not be a determinant of a child ’ s ability to learn in
L2. Previous schooling, experiences, and what they have learned in L1 must also be considered.
18

• Language that the student learns first and uses most frequently in the early stages of language development.
• Language of the home and used to make meaningful communicative relationships with their family.
• Primary language best determined through home language surveys and carefully conducted parent interviews.
• Parents must be encouraged to use and develop children's home language.
19

• The language that the student speaks most fluently and chooses to speak when given a choice.
• The dominant language can be situational in nature. For example, a child schooled only in English will ultimately become dominant in English academic language.
• However, the primary language may remain dominant in other social situations such as church or community events.
20

Proficiency Levels of ELs
21
“ I have little or no English proficiency.
”
Students Can :
!
!
!
Point
!
Draw
Match
Select
Beginner students are those with little or no
English proficiency. The English sound system is new to them, and they comprehend little of what is said in English.
They may go through a "silent period" where they do not attempt to speak in English.
However, beginner students may quickly connect the concepts they know in their primary language to the new English language environment, and they can participate in the classroom by doing the activities listed here. Beginners may demonstrate various levels of oral and literacy skills in their primary language.
!
!
!
!
Circle
State
!
Choose
Act Out
!
Label
Name
!
List
Adapted from IDRA, Intercultural Development Research Association © 2000
Northwest Regional Education Service District

Proficiency Levels of ELs
“
Students Can:
I have good oral skills in English, but minimal
!
Recall
!
Retell
!
Define
!
Describe reading and composition skills in English.
”
!
Compare
!
Contrast
!
Summarize
!
Restate
22
Intermediate level students have good oral skills in English but have minimal reading and composition skills in English. They may be able to carry on social conversations, however understanding academic language and reading and writing at grade-level in English is difficult. Some intermediate students may be literate at or above grade-level in their primary language. Literate students quickly transfer reading and writing skills into English and are able to perform the activities listed here.
Adapted from IDRA, Intercultural Development Research Association © 2000
Northwest Regional Education Service District

23
Proficiency Levels of ELs
IV. & V. Early Advanced and Advanced
“
Students Can:
I am fluent in oral English and have some reading and
!
Analyze
!
Create
!
Defend
!
Debate writing skills, but need help to pass tests.
”
!
Evaluate
!
Justify
Advanced students are those who are nearly proficient in English.
They understand and speak English fluently but have difficulty reading
!
!
Support
Explain and writing in English.
Advanced students have difficulty taking standardized and norm-referenced tests because of the language required to explain thinking . Some advanced students may by fully literate in their home language (L1) while others may have only limited literacy skills in their L1. In order for advanced students to become proficient in English, they need experiences that involve the following skills listed here.
Adapted from IDRA, Intercultural Development Research Association © 2000
Northwest Regional Education Service District

24
Second Language Acquisition Strategies and Activities
All students learn when the information is comprehensible.
ELs require second language acquisition strategies and activities that make the language and information comprehensible.
I. & II. Pre-
Production/
Beginning
III. Intermediate IV. & V. Early
Advanced/
Advanced
 All levels of ELs benefit from:
 Modeling & explicit instruction
 Frequent opportunities to practice using language
 Visual aids & Graphic Organizers
 Cooperative grouping activities
 Manipulative and hands-on activities
 Vocabulary Strategies
Adapted from IDRA, Intercultural Development Research Association © 2000
Northwest Regional Education Service District

25

26

27

Screening and Progress Monitoring in a Problem Solving Framework
28
1.
2.
3.
4.

Define the Problem: Unique Considerations for
Screening ELs
(Brown & Sanford, 2011)
29
1.
Use tools with demonstrated reliability and validity to identify and monitor students ’ needs for instructional support in reading in both L1 and L2.
2.
Assess students ’ language proficiency in L1 and L2 to provide an appropriate context regarding evaluation of current levels of performance.
3.
Plan instruction based on what you know about the student ’ s performance and literacy experiences in L1 and L2 and teach for transfer if needed.

What Are the Unique Considerations for
Screening and Progress Monitoring ELs?
• Reliability: does the assessment produce similar scores across conditions and situations?
• Reliability is not a particular problem if the tool has good psychometric properties.
• Validity: does the test measure what you want to assess?
• Validity may be a problem because assessment results could be influenced by students ’ language, cultural and experiential backgrounds.
• There is evidence for the validity of using CBMs with ELs (Deno, 2005; Wiley & Deno, 2005)
30

Gather Formative Assessment Data
• Universal screening is conducted on a regular basis (2 – 3 times per year) for all students
• Screening assessments are brief, individual, and will identify which students are struggling with core concepts
31

•
32

33
Commonly Used Assessments for ELs:
Screening and Progress Monitoring
• DIBELS/IDEL
▫ General outcome measure
▫ Benchmark and progress monitoring system based on student continuous assessment
▫ Designed to determine if a student is learning and making progress toward the long term reading goal
▫ Between 2 – 5 minutes to administer per indicator
▫ IDEL is the Spanish version
• Aimsweb/MIDE
▫ General outcome measure
▫ Benchmark and progress monitoring system based on student continuous assessment
▫ Designed to determine if a student is learning and making progress toward the long term reading goal
▫ Between 2 – 5 minutes to administer per indicator
▫ MIDE is the Spanish version

Commonly Used Assessments for ELs:
Screening and Progress Monitoring
• CORE
▫ Assessment of comprehension skills related to reading.
▫ Makes classroom comparisons.
▫ Some assessments in
Spanish but not all.
• STAR
▫ Computerized benchmark and progress monitoring.
▫ Available in English only.
34

Diagnostic Assessment
• DRA/EDL
• Designed to measure the level in which the students can read “ independently ” .
• Considered “ benchmark ” assessments that help teachers measure student progress and are collected at the beginning, middle and/or end of the year.
• Approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour per student to administer.

36
Evaluate: Unique Considerations for Progress
Monitoring ELs
(Brown & Sanford, 2011)
1.
Monitor student ’ s progress in all languages of instruction
2.
Set rigorous goals that support students to meet gradelevel standards. You may need to set shorter term goals to meet long term goals since ELs will NOT progress at the same rate as English only students.
3.
Evaluate growth frequently, increasing intensity of instruction (or change interventions) when growth is less than expected
4.
Evaluate growth of “ true peers ” (peers with similar background in language, experience, culture, birth country, education in L1 & L2) to determine whether instruction is generally effective for students with similar linguistic and educational experiences
36

• Depending on a student ’ s need, Tier 1, 2 or 3 interventions are provided.
• Tier 1
▫ Intervention in core materials, small groups (5-7) in general education
▫ Provided by teacher or other educator
▫ Attention must be given to student ’ s language proficiency level (in the language of instruction), and cultural and experiential background
37

• Tier 2
▫ A “ double dose ” of core. May be different materials but goal is to meet grade-level standards.
▫ Small group instruction (3-5)
▫ Instruction must continue to be adapted to student ’ s language proficiency level and cultural and experiential background
▫ An additional oracy (listening & speaking) component should be included to ensure ELs understand the vocabulary and language structures used within the intervention
▫ Intervention must match instructional language of classroom
38

• Tier 3
▫ Different curriculum is used as student is not at grade level
▫ Small group instruction (1-3)
▫ Instruction must continue to be adapted to student ’ s language proficiency level and cultural and experiential background
▫ An additional oracy (listening & speaking) component should be included to ensure ELs understand the vocabulary and language structures used within the intervention
▫ If an EL student is considered for special education, a comprehensive evaluation should be conducted.
39

40

• Research indicates that ELLs need explicit and systematic core reading instruction in reading instruction (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency with connected text, vocabulary, and comprehension strategy instruction) (Fien, Smith,
Baker, Chaparro, Baker & Preciado, 2010; Gersten,
Baker, Shanahan, Linan-Thompson, Collins &
Scarcella, 2007).
• Els need additional instructional time for English language development, with deliberate and focused instruction on English language proficiency that is coordinated and aligned with reading instruction
(Linan-Thompson & Vaughn, 2007).
41

42
• Most core and intervention programs do not provide enough explicit, scaffolded instruction or practice opportunities for ELLs (Gersten, 1999).
• Explicit teacher modeling is frequently absent, and, if present, the models are vague and inconsistent (Baker
& Baker,2008).
• There are limited modeling and practice opportunities needed for deep understanding.
• Vague directions may confuse EL students.
• However, core programs can be enhanced for ELLs by focusing on variables related to explicit and systematic instruction (Linan-Thompson, Bryant, Dickson, &
Kouzekanani, 2005) and language demands.

43
Table 1
PLUSS Framework for Research Based Instruction for ELLs
PLUSS Framework Definition
P re-teach Critical Vocabulary Identify and explicitly teach vocabulary that is unknown and critical to understanding a passage or unit of instruction
L anguage modeling and opportunities for practicing
U se visuals and graphic organizers
S ystematic and explicit instruction
S trategic use of native language & teaching for transfer
Teacher models appropriate use of academic language, then provides structured opportunities for students to practice using the language in meaningful contexts
Strategically use pictures, graphic organizers, gestures, realia and other visual prompts to help make critical language, concepts, and strategies more comprehensible to learners
Explain, model, provided guided practice with feedback, and opportunities for independent practice in content, strategies, and concepts
Identify concepts and content students already know in their native language and culture to explicitly explain, define, and help them understand new language and concepts in English
Evidence
Calderón, 2007; Carlos, et al. 2004;
Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2008; Linan-
Thompson & Vaughn, 2007
Dutro & Moran, 2003; Echevarria, Vogt &
Short, 2008; Gibbons, 2009; Linan-Thompson
& Vaughn, 2007; Scarcella, 2003
Brechtal, 2001; Echevarria & Graves, 1998;
Haager & Klingner, 2005; Linan-Thompson &
Vaughn, 2007; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990
Calderón, 2007; Flaggella-Luby & Deshler,
2008; Gibbons, 2009, Haager & Klingner,
2005; Klingner & Vaughn, 2000; Watkins &
Slocum, 2004;
Carlisle, Beeman, Davis & Spharim, 1999;
Durgunoglu, et al., 1993; Genesee, Geva,
Dressler, & Kamil, 2006; Odlin, 1989;
Schecter, & Bayley, 2002

Examples of PLUSS Framework Applied in the Classroom
PLUSS Framework Example
P re-teach critical vocabulary
Select 3-5 high utility vocabulary words crucial to understanding text (not necessarily content specific words) and explicitly teach student friendly definitions, model using the words, and provide students with repeated opportunities to use the words over time (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2008; Beck, McKeown, Kucan, 2002)
L anguage modeling and opportunities for practicing
Provide language frames and sentence starters to structure language interaction. For example, after having defined the word, ask students to use the word, “preoccupied,” in a sentence, “Think of a time when you were preoccupied.” (pause to give time to think). “Turn to your partners and share, starting your sentence with, ‘I was preoccupied when…’, what will you start your sentence with?” (have students repeat the sentence starter before turning to their neighbor and sharing).
U se visuals and graphic organizers
Consistently use a Venn diagram to teach the concept compare and contrast or use realia and pictures to support the teaching of concepts (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2008)
Teach strategies like summarization, monitoring and clarifying, and decoding strategies through providing direct S ystematic and explicit instruction explanation, modeling, guided practice with feedback, and opportunities for application (Honig, Diamond, &
Gutlohn, 2008).
S trategic use of native language & teaching for transfer
Use native language to teach cognates (e.g. teach that preoccupied means the same thing as preocupado in
Spanish) or explain/clarify a concept in the native language before or while teaching it in English.
44

• YES!!!
• Cross-linguistic transfer (CLT) is especially positive for
Spanish and other alphabetic languages since they share an alphabet and many sounds with English (August &
Shanahan, 2006; Durgunoglu, 2002; Goldenberg,
2008).
• ELs can explicitly be taught the similarities and differences in reading across alphabets to transfer their knowledge of pre-reading or reading skills in L1 (the native language) to L2 (English). Discreet skills
(phonological awareness, orthography)
45

46

• Yesenia was born in the United States and attended Headstart for one year where she had some instruction in Spanish. She attended a bilingual kindergarten until December and then moved to a school with no bilingual programs.
She continues in an English-only program as a first grader. Her language proficiency scores on the Woodcock Muñoz indicate she is a level 3 in
English and level 3 in Spanish.
47

FIRST GRADE - DIBELS
Letter Naming Fluency
(LNF)
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency (PSF)
Nonsense Word Fluency
(NWF)
Decision Criteria –
Beg of Yr
At Risk
0-24
Some Risk
25-36
Low Risk
37+
Deficit
0-9
Emerging
10-34
Established
35+
At Risk
0-12
Some Risk
13-23
Low Risk
24+
Yesenia
27
30
11
48

FIRST GRADE - IDEL
Fluidez en nombrar letras (FNL)
Letter Naming Fluency
Fluidez en la Segmentación de
Fonemas (FSF)
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
(FPS)
Nonsense Word Fluency
Decision Criteria –
Beg of Yr
At Risk
0-19
Some Risk
20-34
Low Risk
35+
Deficit
0-34
Emerging
35-49
Established
50+
At Risk
0-24
Some Risk
25-34
Low Risk
35+
Yesenia
41
53
39
49

50
Tier 1+ Teach for Transfer (Spanish to English)
Monitor Progress every week
Student is on track- continue intensity of instruction; decrease frequency of monitoring to 1x/mo
Mid-year cutoff low risk
Mid-year cutoff at risk
Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006

51
Tier 1+ Teach for Transfer (Spanish to English)
Monitor Progress every week
Student is not on track- implement
Research-based Tier 2 intervention; include oral language component for ELs
Mid-year cutoff low risk
Mid-year cutoff at risk
Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006

• Margarita came to the United States at the age of one. She attends a bilingual school with an early-exit program model; thus, she is transitioning to English literacy instruction. Her language proficiency scores on the Woodcock
Muñoz indicate she is a level 2 in English and level 3 in Spanish.
52

FIRST GRADE - DIBELS Decision Criteria – Beg of Yr
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) At Risk
0-24
Margarita
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency (PSF)
Nonsense Word Fluency
(NWF)
Some Risk
25-36
Low Risk
37+
Deficit
0-9
Emerging
10-34
Established
35+
At Risk
0-12
Some Risk
13-23
Low Risk
24+
27
30
11
53

FIRST GRADE - IDEL
Fluidez en nombrar letras (FNL)
Letter Naming Fluency
Fluidez en la Segmentación de
Fonemas (FSF)
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido
(FPS)
Nonsense Word Fluency
Decision Criteria –
Beg of Yr
At Risk
0-19
Some Risk
20-34
Low Risk
35+
Deficit
0-34
Emerging
35-49
Established
50+
At Risk
0-24
Some Risk
25-34
Low Risk
35+
Margarita
19
31
12
54

55
Tier 2+ Research based intervention L2; monitor weekly
Continue intensity of instruction and monitoring
Mid-year cutoff low risk
Mid-year cutoff at risk
Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006

56
Tier 2+ Research based intervention L2; monitor weekly
Increase intensity of Intervention:
1) Increase intervention fidelity
2) Increase time
3) Smaller Group Size
Mid-year cutoff low risk
Mid-year cutoff at risk
Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006

57

58
• When EL students reach Tier 3 and special education is considered, they should receive a comprehensive evaluation.
• Cognitive assessment of ELs must include the native language and English.
•
Academic assessment of ELs must match the language(s) of instruction.
•
A bilingual profile of performance, based on students ’ combined knowledge across languages, is a better indicator of their abilities than treating them as “ two monolinguals in one ” (Kester & Peña, 2002, n.p.).
• Assessment in both languages allows for a description of what students know cumulatively.

• Not a single procedures or test
• A process
• A framework to consider relevant information and data
▫ Guides data collection
▫ Data interpreted in a systematic manner
• Teams should refer to the work of Flanagan and
Ortiz and their Culture-Language Interpretive
Matrices.
59

• All children have the capacity to learn a second language to the level to which they can learn a first; our language-learning capacity is not languagesystem specific; we are born with the capacity to learn any language, not just a specific language.
• When a language is being developed, be it a first or second language, the focus should initially be more on basic skills; provide lots of contextual cues, such as pictures and gestures.
• Whenever possible, new concepts and skills should be introduced in the child ’ s strongest language system so as to capitalize on existing skills and increase learning efficiency.
60

• What is the role of the speech language pathologist in the RTI process for ELs?
61