Reducing Reading/Special
Education Risk for Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Low-Income
Urban Learners: A Longitudinal
Follow-up
Gwendolyn Cartledge (cartledge.1@osu.edu)
Lefki Kourea (kourea.1@osu.edu)
The Ohio State University
Amanda Yurick (a.l.yurick@csuohio.edu)
Cleveland State University
Reading Failure
 Early intervention at the preschool and kindergarten levels is
increasingly embraced as a means to reduce reading and special
education risk for all children (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006)
 Low-income children who are racial/ethnic minorities and/or English
language learners (ELLs) evidence special risk factors w/ lower
achievement & higher special education placements (Ortiz et al., 2006;
Valenzuela et al., 2006)
 Problems in reading is principal reason for special education referral
 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP, 2003) 71%
students with disabilities read below basic; in urban areas 79% reading
at lowest levels
 The especially poor reading performance of African American males is
well documented in the research literature (Tatum, 2006)
Reading Failure
 English Language Learners (ELLs) are at increased risk for
underachievement, grade retention, attrition, and reading
failure (August & Hakuta, 1997; Haagar, & Mueller, 2001)
 10-20% of school-aged children are diagnosed with reading
disabilities, with the most common cause of disabilities
being phonological processing deficits (Harris & Sipay,
1990)
 Deficits in phonological awareness are most often due to
insufficient educational experiences or inadequate
instruction (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002)
 Good evidence that systematic and explicit interventions
centered on phonological awareness can reduce risk
(Simmons, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006).
Why intervene early?
 Is more effective and efficient than later intervention and
remediation for ensuring reading success (Lyon & Fletcher,
2001)
 Federal mandates (IDEA 2004 & NCLB)
 Studies with systematic, explicit phonics-based instruction
improved the reading skills of at-risk young students (e.g.,
Foorman et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2003; O’Connor, 2000)
 Converging evidence suggests that the principles of
effective reading intervention for non-ELLs is the same for
ELLs (Gersten & Baker, 2000)
 Instruction needs to be explicit, intensive, & systematic
(NRP, 2000)
Multi-Year Project
Session presents research of early reading
intervention with young urban learners: native
English speakers and English Language
Learners (ELLs)
Particular attention to African American males
Research began w/ single-subject pilot study
of 7 African American Kindergarten students:
7 males, 1 female
Benchmark Results
DIBELS January/ Winter Assessments
Student
DIBELS May/ Spring Assessments
ISF
G:25
LNF
G:27
PSF
G:18
NWF
G:13
IR
LNF
G:40
PSF
G:35
NWF
G:25
IR
Henry
6
24
0
0
Intensive
56
52
44
Benchmark
Kevin
7
10
0
0
Intensive
25
27
22
Intensive
Richie
8
0
0
0
Intensive
21
10
17
Intensive
Zach
16
5
0
0
Intensive
32
29
33
Strategic
Isha
9
33
8
2
Strategic
46
55
39
Benchmark
James
4
31
0
5
Strategic
54
46
55
Benchmark
Mark
4
18
2
7
Intensive
40
46
38
Benchmark
Instructional Recommendation (IR): Intensive - Needs substantial intervention, Strategic - Needs
additional intervention, Benchmark - At grade level.
A two-year longitudinal project
Objectives:
1. Investigate the responsiveness to
an explicit PA training of at-risk
urban learners
2. Define the characteristics of nonrespondents to PA training
Year 1’s Investigation in Kindergarten
PRETEST
School 1
School 2
School 3
At/some risk
Some/low risk
Treatment
Group (n=61)
Comparison
Group (n=32)
POSTTEST
Purpose of study in Year 2
Investigate the effects of Year’s 2 reading
intervention on PA skills of treatment
students, who failed to meet benchmarks in
Year 1
Investigate whether treatment students, who
met benchmarks in Year 1, would be able to
maintain treatment gains without additional
intervention in Year 2
Compare the performance of the
Comparison Group with the other two groups
Methods
 Participants and settings
61 follow-up students from 3 urban schools
Sample attrition/retention rate: 34.4% (n=32)
Treatment group’s attrition rate: 37.7% (n=23)
Comparison group’s attrition rate: 28.1% (n=9)
 Student group assignment
ERI-Treatment => students who failed to meet
end-of-year’s 1 benchmark goals
ERI-Control => students who met end-of-year’s 1
benchmark goals
Comparison => students who received only
classroom instruction in Year 1
Methods
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
Somalian
Asian
Multiracial
2%
2%
15%
38%
10%
33%
Year 2’s Investigation in Grade 1
PRETEST
ERI Treatment
Group (n=23)
ERI-Comparison
Group (n=15)
Comparison
Group (n=23)
Repeated measures on a tri-weekly basis
POSTTEST
Methods
 Dependent variables
Primary: Pre/Post Measures
WJ-III: Letter Word Identification, Word Attack,
Passage Comprehension
CTOPP subtests (e.g., Elision, Rapid Color
Naming, etc)
DIBELS Benchmarks (Spring 2006 & 2007)
Secondary: Tri-weekly Measures
DIBELS progress monitoring probes on
 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
 Oral Reading Fluency
 Nonsense Word Fluency
Methods
 Independent variable
 Early Reading Intervention
Scripted supplemental reading program with high degree of
explicitness and code emphasis (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2003)
It targets core beginning reading skills (Phonological
awareness, alphabetic principle, word reading, writing,
spelling)
 Fluency-building activity
Use of decodable stories (increase in difficulty and length
as students progress)
Included 4 components: (a) sight-word acquisition practice,
(b) teacher modeling and guided practice, (c) partner
reading, and (d) testing
 Implemented 4-5 days per week for 20-35min per session
 Delivered by 6 trained IAs (4 paraprofessionals & 2 GA’s)
 Integrity checks collected 1-2 times per week
Results
WJ - Letter Word Identification
Comparison
ERI-Treatment
ERI-Comparison
ERI
Mean Raw Score
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pretest-Year
1
1
Posttest-Year
1
2
Pretest-Year
2
3
Posttest-Year
2
4
Results
WJ - Letter Word Identification (Year 2)
12
Mean Gain
10
10.35
10.27
8.74
8
6
4
2
0
Comparison
1
2
ERI-Treatment
ERI-Comparison
3
Results
WJ- Word Attack
Comparison
ERI-Treatment
Pretest-Year
1
1
Posttest-Year
1
2
ERI-Comparison
ERI
Mean Raw Score
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pretest-Year
3
2
Posttest-Year
2
4
Results
WJ - Word Attack (Year 2)
20
17.47
Mean Gain
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
5.09
5.26
Comparison
1
2
ERI-Treatment
4
2
0
ERI-Comparison
3
Results
WJ - Passage Comprehension
Comparison
ERI-Treatment
ERI-Comparison
Mean Raw Score
20
15
10
5
0
Pretest-Year
1
2
Posttest-Year
2
2
Results
Mean Gain
WJ - Passage Comprehension (Year 2)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8.96
8.27
7.22
Comparison
1
ERI-Treatment
2
ERI-Comparison
3
Looking into our ERI-Treatment group
WJ - Letter Word Identification
ELLs
Non-ELLs
+ 9.88
Mean Raw Score
30
+ 11.13
25
20
+ 11.43
15
10
+ 11.43
5
0
Pretest-Year
1
1
Posttest-Year
2
1
Pretest-Year
3
2
4
Posttest-Year
2
Looking into our ERI-Treatment group
WJ - Word Attack
ELLs
Non-ELLs
+ 5.13
Mean Raw Score
10
8
+ 3.31
6
+ 5.57
4
2
0
Pretest-Year
1
1
+ 3.71
Posttest-Year
2
1
3
4
2
Pretest-Year
2 Posttest-Year
Looking into our ERI-Treatment group
WJ - Passage Comprehension
Mean Raw Score
ELLs
Non-ELLS
+8
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
+ 5.43
Pretest 1- Year 2
Posttest2 - Year 2
Conclusions
 Year 2’s PA training for ERI-treatment group:
Produced greater decoding gains than Year 1’s
Produced greater overall gain outcomes (WA &
LWID) for our ELL treatment group
ERI-Comparison students not only maintained
Year 1’s treatment gains but also surpassed their
comparison peers on WA & LWID standardized
measures
Comparison students maintained a slight edge in
comprehension but continued to lag behind in
LWID & WA
Implications
 Phonemic awareness instruction (i.e. ERI) effective in
helping students acquire and maintain skills from
kindergarten intensive instruction
 Students in 2nd year interventions may benefit from
more fluency and comprehension instruction. These
students warrant more intensive study
 Instruction effective for ELL as well as non-ELL
students
 Non-treatment students would benefit from more
instruction on phonemic/phonological awareness
Progress by African American
Males Over Two-Year Period
Experimental Condition by Gender for
African-American Students ONLY
Male
Female
12
FREQUENCY
10
5
8
4
6
4
1
2
3
6
4
0
ERI-Treatment
ERI-Comparison
Comparison
PSF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
AT RISK
SOME RISK
LOW RISK
% OF ERI-TREATMENT
STUDENTS
100%
33%
33%
80%
60%
33%
67%
40%
20%
100%
33%
0%
1 2006
Mid-Year
2 2006
Spring
Spring
3 2007
NWF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years
Nonsense Word Fluency
% OF ERI-TREATMENT
STUDENTS
AT RISK
SOME RISK
LOW RISK
100%
33%
80%
33%
67%
60%
40%
66%
67%
33%
20%
0%
1 2006
Mid-Year
2 2006
Spring
3 2007
Spring
PSF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years
Phonene Segmentation Fluency
SOME RISK
% OF ERI-COMPARISON
STUDENTS
100%
LOW RISK
25%
50%
80%
60%
40%
100%
75%
50%
20%
0%
1 2006
Mid-Year
Spring
2 2006
Spring
3 2007
NWF for ERI-Comparison over 2
Nonsenseyears
Word Fluency
% OF ERI-COMPARISON
STUDENTS
AT RISK
SOME RISK
LOW RISK
100%
50%
80%
60%
100%
100%
40%
25%
20%
25%
0%
1 2006
Mid-Year
2 2006
Spring
Spring3 2007
Implications
 Both groups received intervention during kindergarten
(1st year), but only ERI Treatment received PA
intervention the second year during first grade
 African American males made progress, but the data
are mixed, especially for NWF
 African American males appeared to fare less well than
females in the study.
 The small numbers limit interpretation of data.
 More research needed to study specific instructional
needs of young African American males.
References
 August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
 Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Schatschneider, C.S., & Mehta, P. (1998).
The role of instruction learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.
 Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to interventions: What, why,
and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 411), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (January/February/March, 2006). Introduction to response to
intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 93-99.
 Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for
English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470.
 Haager, D., & Windmueller, M.P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language
learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235-250.
 Lyon, G.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2001). Early warning systems. Education Next, 1(2), 22-29.
 Mathes, P. G., & Torgesen, J. K. (1998). All children can learn to read: Critical care for
the prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3&4), 317-340.
 National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children
to read. U.S. department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service & National
Institute of Child Health & Human Development Retrieved June 1, 2004 from
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm
 O’Connor, R.E., & Klingner, K.K. (2007, April 20). RtI: Who still needs help when interventions
have failed? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Council for Exceptional
Children, Louisville, KY.
 Ortiz, A.A., Wilkinson, C., Roberson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M.I. (2006). Considerations in
implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and
Special Education, 27, 53-63.
 Simmons, D. (2006). What research says about RTI as early intervention and as a method of LD
identification. Paper presented at the national convention for Council for Exceptional Children, Salt
Lake City, Utah.

Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention. Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman. Official website: http://www.scottforesman.com/eri/index.cfm
 Tatum, A.W. (2006). Engaging African American males in reading. Educational Leadership, 63(5),
44-49.
 Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Qi, C.H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity:
Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional
Children, 72, 425-441.
 Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of
identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409.
 Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P., Crino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S.,
Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade
English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 5673.
 Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuelle, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a
vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the
role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169.
 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing