How RTI can Serve English Language Learners Sylvia Linan-Thompson Alba A. Ortiz The University of Texas at Austin

1
How RTI can Serve English Language
Learners Sylvia Linan-Thompson Alba A.
Ortiz The University of Texas at Austin

• RTI Summit
• December 6, 2007

2
Issues Associated with the Education of ELLs

• Low academic achievement
• Lower expectations for performance
• Low level ability groups/tracks
• High rates of social promotion and/or retention
• High drop out rates
• Disproportionate special education representation

3
ELLs with Reading-related LD

• An IQ-achievement discrepancy was the basis for
  classifying ELLs as having learning disabilities,
  even when
• The discrepancy was barely significant in one
  area and all other scores were at/above grade
  level or consistent with IQ
• Assessment results were inconsistent with the
  concerns reported by the referring teacher.
• (Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, Kushner, 2006)

4
ELLs with LD

• Multidisciplinary teams failed to provide
  assurances under the exclusionary clause that
  problems could not be attributed to such factors
  as lack of access to effective reading
  instruction .
• There was limited or no documentation of early
  intervention efforts to address reading
  difficulties or of the results of these efforts.
• Interventions reported were often not specific
  to identified difficulties.
• .(Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, Kushner, 2006)

5
ELLs with LD

• How can RTI help address these issues?

6
Overview-RTI

• Response to intervention (RTI) is the degree to
  which a student who has been identified as
  at-risk for academic or behavior problems by
  screening measures has benefited from
  intervention designed to reduce risk.
• Determining RTI requires
• Assessing students to determine risk
• Providing intervention
• On-going progress monitoring to ascertain response

7
Multi-tiered Model

• Tier 1 High quality instructional and behavioral
  supports to prevent the development of difficulty
• Tier 2 Specialized intervention for students
  behind peers to minimize problems early
• Tier 3 Comprehensive evaluation and specialized
  services with intensive intervention to treat
  problems aggressively and constrain negative
  effects.

NJCLD (2005) DLD (2007)
8
A Model for Multi-tiered Academic Intervention
Tier 1
Core Reading Instruction
Supplemental Reading Instruction
Tier 2
Tier 3
Intensive Reading Instruction
9
Multi-tier Model

• Uses instructional procedures that are responsive
  to students needs
• Collects data on student performance
• Establishes procedures and criteria for providing
  Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction

10
Why are tiered models used for academic
interventions?

• Allow for use of a range of programs
• Allow for integration of services (e.g., Title I,
  general education, special education)
• Allow for early intervention
• Allow for practices related to Response to
  Intervention

11

• Prerequisites to the Success
• of RTI for ELLs

12
PREVENTION Create an environment that reflects
a philosophy that all students can learn and
that educators are responsible for seeing to it
that they do.

• Strong leadership by the principal
• High expectations for all students
• A safe and orderly school environment
• Collegiality among school personnel
• Shared decision-making
• A shared knowledge base related to the education
  of ELLs
• Linguistic and cultural pluralism

• Well-implemented bilingual education and/or
  English as a Second Language programs
• Ongoing, systematic evaluation of student
  progress
• Effective responses to student difficulty
• Collaborative school, home, and community
  relationships
• Mechanisms in place for mentoring new faculty

13
Leadership

• Principals have a total and unwavering commitment
  to their students achievement and to an
  excellent bilingual education and/or English as a
  second language program that is fully integrated
  into their school.
• (Montecel Cortez, 2002)

14
A Program Model

• Teachers and community members participate in the
  selection and design of a bilingual/ESL program
  model
• The program model is grounded in sound theory and
  best practices associated with an enriched, not
  remedial, instructional models.
• (Montecel Cortez, 2002)

15
Program Articulation

• The program of instruction is 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.
• (Montecel Cortez, 2002)

16
Teachers use instructional strategies known to be
effective for ELLs.

• Academically rich programs
• Native language instruction
• English language development
• Meaningful language use across the curriculum
• Culturally relevant curriculum
• Build on prior knowledge

• Higher-order skills
• Direct, explicit skill instruction
• Thematic instruction
• Collaborative learning
• Scaffolding
• Individual guidance and support
• Continuous monitoring of student progress
• Meaningful, continuous family involvement

17
A Transition Plan

• Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that students
  have the skills to access to the same curriculum
  presented to native English speaking students.
• It is understood that transition is a process,
  not an event.
• Recognizing that, there is a clear plan and
  process for transitions
• -from native language to English instruction
• -from ESL to English instruction

18
A Transition Plan

• For students receiving native language
  instruction, the plan reflects an understanding
  of
• the bi-directional influence of instruction in
  each language.
• skills that transfer (positive and negative),
  and
• skills that must be explicitly taught in each
  language

19
An Exit Plan
Exit is distinguished from transition and refers
to the termination of special language program
supports for ELLs. The re-classification of an
ELL as English proficient indicates that the
student is able to participate successfully in
mainstream, all-English instructional
programs.
20

• Both transition and exit decisions are based on
  students language proficiencies and achievement
  status, not simply on the basis of their age or
  grade.

21
Professional Development

• Fully credentialed bilingual education and ESL
  teachers are continuously acquiring new knowledge
  regarding best practices in bilingual education
  and ESL.
• General 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)

22
A Shared Knowledge Base

• Philosophy, purpose, and rationale for bilingual
  education and ESL programs
• 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

23
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

24
Focus on Tier 1

• Assessment
• Core curriculum
• Academic language
• Transition

25
Assessment

• Screening
• Progress monitoring
• Benchmark

26
Assessment

• Research on effective reading instruction for EL
  learners has documented the importance of
  assessing students progress in reading (Chamot
  OMalley, 1994).
• This includes not only teacher documentation of
  daily and periodic progress but also students
  self-evaluation of their own progress according
  to pre-determined goals and objectives (Chamot
  OMalley, 1994).

27
Screening

• Reading measures to identify first grade students
  who need intensive early intervention are valid
• Consistently strong measures of future reading
  growth are measures of phonemic awareness and
  fluency in naming letters of the alphabet
• True in both English and Spanish

28
Screening

• Students oral language proficiency alone is not
  a valid predictor of reading success or failure.

29
Screening

• Conduct screening assessments 2 times per year in
  kindergarten (middle and end of the year)
• Conduct screening assessments 3 times per year in
  first grade and above (beginning, middle, and end
  of the year)
• Assess all students on appropriate measures
• Examine students scores in relationship to
  established goals and language program
• Use results to inform both whole group and small
  group instruction

30
Language of Screening Measures

• English Immersion with ELD support
• Use grade appropriate measures in English
• Kindergarten phonemic awareness, letter naming,
  alphabetic principle
• First grade phonemic awareness, letter naming,
  alphabetic principle, oral reading fluency
• Second grade alphabetic principle, oral reading
  fluency
• Third grade oral reading fluency

31
Language of Screening Measures

• Bilingual Education Program
• Use grade appropriate measures
• That match the language of reading instruction,
  often native language, initially
• In both the native language and English during
  the transition process
• English when students are ready to exit and are
  no longer receiving reading instruction in the
  native language

32
Instructional Implications
33
Progress Monitoring

• Provide a means to
• Monitor student learning
• Determine efficacy of instruction
• Timeline will vary with level of students
• In Tier 1, minimum 3 times a year but, may want
  to consider once a grading period
• Language will match language of instruction

34
Benchmarks

• Benchmarks are necessary to set a goals for
  students.
• ELLs can meet benchmarks when provided
  appropriate instruction that supports language
  and literacy development.

35
Tier 1

• Components of effective Tier 1 instruction for
  ELLs
• 90 minutes
• Comprehensive instruction
• Reading
• Math
• Flexible grouping

36
A comprehensive approach to literacy
development
Reflects a balanced approach--a focus on both
skills and meaning Provides for differentiated
instruction based on student characteristics (Fra
ncis, 2005 Snow Burns, 1998 Goldenberg,
1998)
37
A comprehensive approach to literacy development
Incorporates components shown to be determinants
of literacy achievement for both monolingual
students and ELLs -Phonemic Awareness -Phonics
-Fluency -Vocabulary -Comprehension Incorporate
s study skills and strategies (Francis, 2005
Snow Burns, 1998 Goldenberg, 1998)
38
A comprehensive approach to literacy development

• 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).

39
Other Important Components

• Dedicated ELD block
• Focus on academic language in all content areas

40
ELD

• Dedicated block during the day
• Focus on instructional components of literacy and
  language
• Explicit and systematic instruction in the
  structure of English
• Preview and review

41
Academic Language

• Each content area has a particular way of using
  language that children need to learn to use.
• Students must use linguistic skills to interpret
  and infer meaning from oral and written language
• and
• discern precise meaning and information from
  text.

42
To develop higher level cognitive skills as well
as mastering the language associated with it.

• Students need language models that are
  comprehensible, and opportunities to use language
  in the context of specific instructional
  activities.

43
Flexible Grouping

• Whole group
• To introduce new information
• Small homogenous groups
• For focused instruction
• Structured pairs
• To provide additional practice
• To provide language models

44
Benefits of RTI

• Preventive approach
• Assessment is used to inform instruction
• Instruction is focused on critical components
• Serves as a means for gauging efficacy of
  instruction