Intensive Instruction and Interventions
for Academics: Next Steps in Providing a
Continuum of Supports for English
Language Learners
Alba A. Ortiz
alba.ortiz@mail.utexas.edu
The University of Texas at Austin
2008 OSEP Project Directors Conference
Features of RTI
 High quality classroom instruction
 Research-based instruction
 Universal screening all students
 Continuous progress monitoring
 Research-based interventions
 Progress monitoring during interventions
 Fidelity measures
Disproportionate Representation of English
Language Learners in Special Education
 Field Initiated Study: Field-initiated Study, Bilingual
Exceptional Students: Effective Practices for Oral
Language and Reading Instruction (BESt Practices
Project), Department of Education, OSEP, 1999-2003)
 Model Demonstration Project: Determining Special
Education Eligibility for the Bilingual Exceptional
Student: Early Intervention, Referral and Assessment,
U. S. Department of Education,OSEP, and the Texas Education
Agency, 2004-2007
RTI and ELLs
 Teachers do not know how to document
and/or use data for progress monitoring
and/or to substantiate their concern that the
student has a disability.
 Despite frequent testing and benchmarking,,
teachers bring little data to problem-solving
meetings.
 Teachers do not understand the meaning of
"interventions". Typical interventions include
 Simplified the assignment
 Provided small group instruction
 Assigned a buddy
(Robertson, Wilkinson, & Ortiz, 2008)
RTI and ELLs
 Bilingual education teachers report that the
Problem-solving Team (PST) process does
not work well for ELLs.
 Teams:
 do not adequately address issues of linguistic
and cultural diversity
 Do not design or monitor interventions prior to
special education referral
 As a result, teachers do not routinely request
assistance from PSTs
(Robertson, Wilkinson, & Ortiz, 2007)
RTI and ELLs
 Referrals to PSTs are sometimes correlated
with accountability assessments

…the way the reality is here and the fear about the [state
achievement] test…It’s an end run around the test when they know
that this kid is not going to be able to pass, and so instead of that
kid being a blemish, you know, a hash mark in the negative column.
. . I was ordered to [refer] three kids [to the Intervention Assistance
Team].
[Teacher]
 Support services are not routinely available for ELLs

We under test (for alternative programs or services). There is no
help for bilinguals, so why help them. ELLs have usually been
under-identified.
[Administrator]
(Robertson, Wilkinson, & Ortiz, 2008)
Issues with Typical RTI Models
 RTI models tend to focus on prevention and
early intervention at the level of the classroom.
They do not adequately address prevention at
the school level and/or the contribution of
school climate to the success of ELLs.
 Though not intended, their focus on concepts
like universal screenings and standard
protocols are too often interpreted as
endorsing “one size fits all” approaches to
resolving student difficulties.
(Garcia & Ortiz, in press)
RTI and ELLs
 Support services are often inconsistent with
the students’ academic program (e.g.,
specialists lack expertise in the education of
ELLs; programs designed to provide
increasingly intensive interventions are
available only in English).
 It is difficult to implement effective tertiary
interventions as called for in Tier 3, if Tiers 1
and 2 are not working.
School Context Conducive
to the Success of ELLs
 A shared knowledge base related to the education ELLs
 Linguistic and cultural pluralism
 Well-implemented bilingual education and/or English as a
Second Language programs
 Ongoing, systematic evaluation of student progress in the
native language (L1) and/or in English as a second
language (L2)
 Collaborative school, home, and community relationships
 Mechanisms in place for mentoring new faculty
(Garcia & Ortiz, in press; Ortiz, 2002; Wilkinson & Ortiz, 1991)
School Context
 Special language program models grounded in sound
theory and best practices associated with an enriched,
not remedial, instructional model.
 Programs of instruction that are properly
scoped, sequenced, and articulated across grade
levels and aligned with developmentally
appropriate practices and student language
proficiency levels in the native language and/or
in English.
 Use of instructional strategies known to be
effective for ELLs
(Garcia & Ortiz, in press; Ortiz, 2002; Wilkinson & Ortiz, 1991; Montecel & Cortez, 2002)
School Context
 On-going professional development:
 Fully credentialed bilingual education and ESL teachers
are continuously acquiring new knowledge regarding
best practices in bilingual education and ESL.
 General education and special education teachers
regularly participate in professional development
focused on meeting the needs of ELLs (e.g.,
information about bilingual education, ESL strategies,
and about the cultural and linguistic characteristics that
serve as assets to the academic success of ELLs).
(Montecel & Cortez, 2002; Garcia & Ortiz, in press)
Professional Development Targets:
Philosophy, purpose, and rationale for bilingual education
and ESL programs
Fidelity of implementation of program model
Language acquisition and development
Assessment of conversational and academic language
proficiency.
Other influences on student learning
Culture (that of students and of educators)
Socioeconomic status
(Ortiz, 2002; Garcia & Ortiz, in press)
A Shared Knowledge Base
Effective instructional approaches
Linguistically and culturally responsive
assessment and progress monitoring (within
and across grades)
Partnerships with ELL families and
communities
Recognizing and overcoming deficit
perspectives toward ELLs and their families
(Ortiz, 2002; Garcia & Ortiz, in press)
Consideration in Conducting
Screening Assessments
Assess all students on appropriate measures
that match the language(s) of instruction
Examine students’ scores in relationship to
established goals and language program
Use results to inform both whole group and
small group instruction
Monitor progress to monitor student learning and
to evaluate the efficacy of instruction
(Linan-Thompson & Ortiz, 2007)
Effective Language and Literacy Instruction
Provides opportunities for students to
develop full and productive proficiencies in
the native language and/or English in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing,
consistent with high expectations for all
students.
(Center for Equity & Excellence in Education, 1996; August & Hakuta,
1997; Goldenberg, 1998).
Language and Literacy Connections
It is important to think about language
proficiency as a “continua of proficiencies”
in L1 and L2.
Oral language for social and academic
interactions
Narrative skills
Reading
Relationships among
Oral Language and Reading
 Students rated as “proficient” in Spanish on the Student
Observation or Oral Language (SOLOM) measure:
 Were more likely to meet reading benchmarks
 Had higher scores on storytelling tasks.
 Students who were not proficient in Spanish performed
at lower levels in English.
 Oral language proficiency correlated positively with
reading skills in both L1 and L2.
(Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson, 2007)
Instructional Recommendations
 Teachers must recognize the variation in
oral language and narrative skill development
among their students and provide instruction
consistent with student characteristics.
 Focus on communication
 Focus on language development
 Focus on language enrichment
Sarita's Spanish Story: Level 4
Focus on Language Enrichment
Um, había una vez un niño que, un día fue al zoológico, al circo. Y
fue a ver, a ver los payasos y a ver [los] leones. Entonces cuando
salió, ya se iba allí, pero de repente un domador de león descuidó un
poco la jaula del león, y entonces el león se va, y la jaula no estaba
cerrada con candado. entonces el león se salió, y atacó al niño,
entonces el niño se iba a tropezar. El niño se tropezó, y luegó, y como
había comprado unas palomitas, se le cayeron las palomitas. Y llegó
un domador de leones y este lo metió en la jaula. Y el niño se fue a su
casa, teniendo miedo de los leones, pero le preguntó a su mamá,
“Mamá vienen aquí los leones? Y su mamá le dijo, “ No, aquí no
vienen los leones.” Y ya el niño se tranquilizó, pero, luego fue a un
circo, a los pocos días o si, fue a una, cómo se llama, un zoológico, y
cuando se salió del zoológico, los leones se habían escapados y
andaban por todas las rutas.
Sarita's English Story: Level 1
Focus on communication
And and a boy is um, um, I. What is this? Is um is um.
Is this boy, is um um, no. Boy uh is…
Research on ELLs and RTI Interventions
ESL literacy services are not sufficient for struggling
learners; students need targeted reading intervention and
ESL intervention
ELLs benefit from the same early literacy interventions
found to be successful with English-only students
Students enrolled in small groups using direct
instruction, or highly structured, curricula (e.g., Reading
Mastery, Early Interventions in Reading, Read Well,
Programmed Reading, Open Court, Read Naturally)
improved in secondary-level interventions
(Kamps et al., 2007; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003)
Research on ELLs and RTI Interventions
Secondary level interventions may be needed for an extended
period of time
By establishing a priori criteria for success and a maximum amount
of time for supplemental instruction, it is possible to identify a distinct
cohort of students who require substantial support and more intensive
and explicit instruction These students can be considered as requiring
special education.
(Kamps et al., 2007; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003)
Research on ELLs and RTI Interventions
Small group interventions of at least 20 weeks can allow
many students to make substantial gains in reading
outcomes (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003).
(Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003).
Effective Literacy Instruction
Reflects a balanced approach--a focus on both
skills and meaning
Incorporates components shown to be
determinants of literacy achievement for both
monolingual students and ELLs (i.e., phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension)
Incorporates study skills and strategies
Provides for differentiated instruction based on
student characteristics (e.g., levels of proficiency)
(Francis, 2005; Snow & Burns, 1998; Goldenberg, 1998)
Effective Instructional Strategies
Incorporate direct instruction and interactive approaches
Emphasize meaningful language use across the
curriculum
Use the native language as a bridge to English [instuction
in L1 or L1 support]
Make connections between existing knowledge, skills,
experiences, and the academic curriculum.
Emphasizes on vocabulary development
(Genesee, 2005; Gersten, Baker, Haager, & Graves, 2004; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Carlo,
McLaughlin, Snow, & August, 2003 Gersten, Marks, Keating, & Baker, 1998)
What works for ELLs?
[Potentially Positive Effects]
What Works Clearninghouse
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
Reading AND Language Development
Intervention
Instructional Conversations and
Literature Logs
Vocabulary Improvement Program for ELLs and their
Classmates
Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition
Language Development
Intervention
Arthur
Fast ForWord
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups
Reading
Intervention
Enhanced Proactive Reading
Peer Assisted Learning Strategies
Read Naturally
Read Well
Reading Mastery
Success for All
Ultimately, educators must determine:
What works?
For which student(s)?
In what context,
and under what conditions?