Response to Intervention (RTI) and English Language Learners

Response to Intervention for ELLs 1

Final Project

Response to Intervention (RTI) and English Language Learners:

Challenges & Possible Solutions

Maryam Salahshoor

EDUC 881, Section 001

Doctoral Seminar in Bilingual Education: POLICY

Spring 2012

April 30, 2012

Option B: Workshop Response to Intervention (RTI) and English Language Learners: Challenges & Possible Solutions Response to Intervention for ELLs 2

The number of English language learners is increasing across the United States. By 2002,

43% of the nation’s teachers had at least one English language learner in their classrooms (U.S.

Department of Education [USDOE], 2003). Often, English language learners have lower achievement levels compared to non-English speaking students at the same grade level. These students are also retained more and a larger number of them drop out of school yearly (Zehler et al. 2003). Despite more than 30 years of legislative reforms, student from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) background continue to be identified disproportionately and placed in special education settings (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Majority of English language learners in special education are identified with learning disabilities (57% in this category vs. 53% in this category among the rest of the student population) and in speech and language impairment (24% in this category vs. 19% among the rest of the population) which indicates the overrepresentation of bilinguals in these two categories. On the other hand, bilinguals are underrepresented in

“gifted and talented’ programs (1.4% in contrast to 6.4% of the English proficient population)

(Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010).

Part of this problem is due to the measures that have been used to identify students with learning disabilities and other categories of special education. According to Kirst and Wirt

(2004), IQ tests which were used during World War I in recruit efforts, were later used to measure students achievement, and for tracking and placing students in various programs. More recently IQ achievement discrepancy identification model has been used to identify students with learning disabilities regardless of their language background. Others have suggested other reasons for this unequal representation. Garcia and Ortiz (1988), suggest failure to recognize and distinguish various reasons that students experience academic problems, as another reason for the inappropriate placement of language minority students in special education settings. While Response to Intervention for ELLs 3 many schools still use an IQ-Achievement Discrepancy model to identify the presence of a learning disability, that is students with learning disabilities show an unexpected gap between their potential and achievement, there is a push for schools to use a Response to Intervention

(RTI) method to identify learning disabilities (LD). Donovan and cross (2002), and some other researchers recommended moving away from a discrepancy model for identifying students with

LD and instead consider a model that utilizes the degree in which students respond to valid instruction when considering learning disability as the cause of the learning problem for the students (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Therefore, Response to Intervention model (RTI) was introduced as a way to improve some of the problems and causes of disproportionate representation of English language learners in special education.

Interventions at the School Level before RTI

Although RTI is a fairly new initiative, the idea behind it is not. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) addressed the issue of inappropriate referral and placement of minority children in special education and the need for effective and systematic interventions and ongoing assessments to measure students’ progress towards these interventions years before RTI. In order to cut down on inappropriate referral and placements of minority students, they recommended the use of

Teacher Assistance Team (TAT) consisted of regular education teachers, and sometimes special education teachers if consultant needed, to provide a day-to-day peer problem-solving unit within their school building. The use of TAT was thought to reduce the number of inappropriate minority referrals to special education because the problem could be solved by regular education teachers at the school level. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) suggested asking the following questions when using this model with students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: Response to Intervention for ELLs 4

1- Is the student experiencing academic difficulty as a result of handicapping issues or

linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic and other background differences that are not

considered handicapping conditions?

2- Are the curricula and instructional materials known to be effective for language

minority students?

3- Has the problem been validated? Is the problem considered a norm in student’s

reference group?

4- Is there evidence of systematic efforts to identify the source of difficulty and to take

corrective action?

5- Are the student’s difficulties persistence even after sufficient and systematic efforts to

take corrective action(s)?

6- Have other programming alternatives been tried?

7- Do difficulties continue in spite of alternatives?

Changes at the Federal Level Leading to RTI

In 2004 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) was reauthorized. A new component of this law focused on prevention-focused instructional practices intended to be used in the regular education classroom for students who have not yet been identified as eligible for special education but require additional behavioral and academic support in order to be successful in regular education settings. EIS goal is to prevent over identification and over presentation of culturally and linguistically diverse population for special education services.

To support this initiative, IDEA 2004 allows a district to use up to 15 percent of its special education funds for: Response to Intervention for ELLs 5

• Ongoing professional development that enables teachers and other school staff to

develop greater expertise in the delivery of scientifically based academic instruction and

behavioral interventions.

• Educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports.

The reauthorization of the IDEA included RTI as an early intervening service model and an alternative to discrepancy identification model.

The following model adopted from Kirst and Wirt (2009), illustrates the interrelationship between the political system and other subsystems resulting in writing RTI initiative into special Response to Intervention for ELLs 6 education law (Public Law 108–446, Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act –

IDEIA) which in return feedbacks values and resources into the society where the process began for yet another change in the future.

Demands

Outputs

Inputs

Support

Feedback Loop

What is Response to Intervention? Response to Intervention for ELLs 7

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a general education initiative written into the special education law IDEA 2004. Its purpose is to offer educators a framework in which to structure

Early Intervening Services (EIS). At its core, RTI aims to support at-risk students by removing barriers to learning. RTI intended to provide support struggling readers including English language learners when they first exhibit early signs of reading problems (Brown & Steege,

2005).

The RTI process involves gathering and examining assessment data. Educators then use the results to judge the effectiveness of the interventions used with students and to determine appropriate new instructional plans. Regular classroom teachers represent the first line of early intervention. They are expected to implement high-quality; evidence-based instruction matched to a student’s learning needs as identified through the screening process and classroom assessments.

RTI in Virginia

Interventions are targeted instructions according to student’s needs. According to

Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, and McKnight (2006) interventions are enrichments to the general education curriculum that are:

• Based on assessed student skill deficit

• Targeted to address specific and discrete skill deficits

• Intended to be short-term, explicit instruction

• Monitored frequently to document and ensure progress

In Virginia, interventions are designed to be coordinated with the curriculum provided in general education. SOLs in Virginia are the base for interventions and interventions serve to enhance core instructional programs based on SOLs. However, these interventions are designed Response to Intervention for ELLs 8 to meet each student’s individual need as determined by diagnostic tests (VDOE, 2007). Finally, interventions are revised as needed based on student performance. In RTI, interventions are provided at three levels: Tiers 1, 2, and 3.

Tier 1 Interventions

At Tier 1, intervention is defined as the central classroom instruction that all students receive.

However, in addition to core classroom instruction, student progress is assessed three times per year through universal screening. Instruction at this level should be tailored to the majority of students and teachers need to provide differentiated instruction to meet individual student needs

(VDOE, 2007).

Tier 2 Interventions At Tier 2, a child who fails to meet instructional goals even after receiving Tier 1 interventions, after a complete review by the school’s student progress monitoring team, would move on to Tier 2. Tier 2 is intended to provide further support to students who are still struggling in general education classrooms and have not met the academic benchmarks in Tier 1.

In Tier 2 preventions research-based instruction continues in small groups no greater than five students for 30 minutes per day. Students’ progress will be measured using appropriate tools at least twice per month (VDOE, 2007).

Tier 3 Interventions The focus of instruction in Tier 3 is on students with significant difficulties in reading or math who have not responded adequately to Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions. The instruction at this level is even more intensive, focused, and individualized. The teacher/student ratio for this

Tier is 1/3 with 1/1 being optimal choice. These intensive instructions usually take place outside of the child’s regular classroom in addition to his/her core classroom instructional program.

Progress is measured at least once a week on targeted skills. The primary differences between Response to Intervention for ELLs 9

Tier 2 and Tier 3 are the frequency with which interventions occur, the duration of particular interventions, the skill and expertise of the interventionist, and the frequency of progress monitoring. If a student is still not responding to these intense interventions provided in Tier 3 a referral for individual evaluation to determine whether the child has special needs and in need of special education services would be justified (VDOE, 2007).

Implications and Limitations of RTI for English Language Learners

Generally, stakeholders agree that if RTI is implemented well at the classroom level, it has the potential in supporting all students, especially those at risk of failing. Evidence suggests that early interventions, ongoing progress monitoring, and intensive interventions and effective classroom instruction associated with RTI are related to academic achievement and improved outcome for academically challenged students (Vaughn, 2010). However, less evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of these interventions with ELL population. Also we do not have adequate information regarding the types of programs and interventions that are effective for

ELL students who do not respond favorably to RTI interventions that are usually effective with other students (Vaughn, 2007). Such students are likely to be identified as having learning disabilities. There is a gap in scientifically based research on specifically designed quality instruction and to understand how to implement RTI for diverse population including ELLs, resulting in the lack of confidence in the current knowledge base and a mismatched between research and existing policies. As a result, the intent of current policies in RTI is inhibited by its many deficits in implementation including those affecting ELLs. Based on the important of RTI and EIS for state education agencies (SEAs), LEAs, the U.S. Department of Education’s, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

(OESE) and many other policy makers and stakeholder groups, Project Forum at the National Response to Intervention for ELLs 10

Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) conducted a policy forum on

RTI and EIS as part of its agreement with Office of Special Education Programs in 2006. The goal of this forum was to identify various issues/barriers to the implementation of RTI and identifying possible solutions/recommendations to remediate these barriers. They identified many issues and barriers in implementing RTI. Some of these barriers are as follow:

 Policy inconsistency withy other school reform initiatives (RTI is not in No Child

Left Behind)

 The pessimistic idea that this is “nothing new” and “this too shall pass”.

 Lack of access to effective RTI for English language learners (ELL) students.

 Understanding of RTI for populations such as ELL/racial and ethnic differences.

Further, NCLB and IDEA emphasize a model of developing reading and literacy development in English which is not necessarily consistent with what we know about how children learn a second language. Garcia (2009) identifies several current limitations that schools face when implementing the existing RTI model with ELL population:

• Students must learn English and academic content without falling behind.

• RTI research has focused mainly on reading interventions.

• Difficulty in deciding what program and interventions are working and for whom?

• Limited attention to variables in the learning environment that affects students from

linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds.

• Use of ‘evidence-based practices” that have not been validated with CLD students.

One of the greatest challenges in implementing RTI interventions for ELL population is how to determine student’s knowledge and skills in his/her first language and then understand their performance in their second language (English) (Vaughn, 2007). For example, there are Response to Intervention for ELLs 11 subgroups of English language learner students whose literacy knowledge and skills in their first language (e.g., Spanish) are sufficient, but their literacy skills in their second language (i.e.,

English) are low.

Rationale for the Proposed Workshop

Many teachers including those teaching special or regular education students and those servicing ELL students feel that they do not have adequate knowledge and skills necessary to work with ELL students (Vaughn, 2007). Specially, when the student’s first language is not shared by the teacher or by other students in the class, teachers have no way of providing information for the student. Therefore, the teachers fear that their lack of knowledge in the student’s first language prohibits them from providing effective instruction for them. As a result, they may choose to do minimum amount of work needed to intervene for these students

(Vaughn, 2007).Therefore, assessment and treatment of these students becomes further complicated by these issues. In order to inform teachers of the current practices, limitations, and possible solutions of implementing RTI interventions with ELL population, a comprehensive professional development program is needed. The three-hour workshop proposed here focuses on basic background information on RTI, problems that teachers face in in implementing RTI with

ELL, and problem solving skills and experiences through case studies working with ELL. This workshop can serve as a valuable resource in ongoing and research-based professional development to teachers and other school personnel.

Policy Question Response to Intervention for ELLs 12

To examine the existing gap between the intent of existing policies such as RTI initiative and their applications and the barriers that most hinder effective implementation of RTI the following question are posted:

 What are the Implications and Limitations of Response to Intervention (RTI) for

English language learners?

 What are some challenges and possible solutions of implementing RTI

interventions with English language learners?

The Proposed Workshop

Title: Response to Intervention (RTI) and English Language Learners: Challenges & Possible Solutions Time: 3 hours Supplies:  RTI PowerPoint.  Paper, pens and pencils.  Chart paper and markers.  Workshop package for each teacher attending the workshop consisted of:

 Cloze activity sheets  Consolidated Barriers Activity sheets  Evaluation sheets (To be sued as feedback to modify the workshop as needed for future)  Workshop teacher training credit sheets (if appropriate) Audience: The target audience consist of up to 20 elementary (K-5th grade) Special education, ESL, and regular education teachers in a public school in Virginia. Purpose of the workshop: The three-hour workshop proposed here focuses on basic background information on RTI, problems that teachers face in in implementing RTI with ELL, and problem solving skills and experiences through case studies working with ELL. Objectives Upon completion of this workshop, participants will be able to:  Describe RTI’s main purpose, three tiers, and interventions utilized in each tier.  Identify at least four main challenges teachers face in implementing RTI with English language learners.  Identify four solutions to above problems. Response to Intervention for ELLs 13

 Describe and reflect on some challenges they and their co-workers face when implementing RTI for ELL.  Explore some resources and materials intended to enhance teacher’s skills in implementing RTI. Advance Preparations Assemble supplies and set up materials for each person. Have the power point ready. Make sure the technology instruments (projector, screen, etc.) works. Session Outline 10:00- 10:05 Gathering and welcome

 Welcoming participants, introducing, and greeting. (Title of the workshop, The purpose of the workshop, the name of the presenter, and the duration of the workshop should be projected on the screen) (see Appendix A) 10:05 – 10:15 Assessing background knowledge

 This activity intends to pre-assess the workshop participants’ knowledge about the RTI.  When all of the people have gathered, the presenter welcomes them and introduces him/herself formally.  Introduce the format for the event (slide #1 on the PowerPoint)  Ask people to raise their hand if they had heard about Response to Intervention (RTI) and know how the process works and feel confident about their knowledge. Ask a few of them to elaborate their responses by briefly talking about their response in two to three sentences. Ask people to raise their hand if they have heard about RTI, but feel that they need more training on it. Ask a few of them to elaborate their responses by briefly talking about their response in two to three sentences.  Ask people to raise their hand if they never heard of RTI and would like to learn about it. 10:15 – 10:20 Warm up activity:

 This activity intends to focus participant’s attention on the topic of RTI.  Ask people to complete the “cloze activity” (see Appendix B) sheet that is in their packets with a partner which asks them to fill in the blanks in some statements about RTI. This activity is also on the slide #3 of the PowerPoint.  Review the answers with the groups. 10:20 – 11:00 Response to Intervention for ELLs 14

Conceptualization: Focus and review

Response to Intervention (RTI) and English Language Learners: Challenges & Possible Solutions: A PowerPoint Presentation (slides 4-14)  The PowerPoint slides #4, #5and #6 introduces and explores key facts and ideas that led to authorization of the RTI intuitive. Issues such as the number of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) students in the special education, racial disparities in special education by categories, and disproportionate numbers of minority children in special education.  Pause and ask if participants have and questions or reflections.  Slide #7: This slide point that the idea behind RTI is not “new” and that Garcia and Ortiz (1998) years before RTI, to cut down on inappropriate referral and placements of minority students, they recommended the use of Teacher Assistance Team (TAT). Read and go over some considerations involved in TAT meetings.  Slides #8 and #9 focus on what policy changes happened as a result of the new RTI initiative.  Slide # 10 focuses on the new identification criteria for the learning disabilities.  Slide #11 models a visual representation of the three tiers. Three levels of interventions. Research based instruction for all; intensive assistance for struggling students; and more focused and one-to one instruction.  Slides #12, #13, and #14, describe the interventions that happen within each tier. 11:00 – 11:15 A short video on RTI’s three phases:  You tube video on the three tier model (2 minutes and 45 seconds)  Reflections and reactions to the video (17 minutes)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkK1bT8ls0M&feature=related 11:15 – 11:30 Break 11:30 -11:45 Reflection and Discussion

 Ask people to form small groups of 4- depending on the size of the workshop up to 4-5 groups in total. Have teachers brainstorm the questions on the PPT slide# 16:

1- At what stage and how is your school and/or district in implementing RTI? 2- What are the greatest challenges you are facing?

 Have the groups write their responses on papers provided for them in the workshop packet  Have one person from each group read their responses to others and discuss the responses. Response to Intervention for ELLs 15

11:30 -12:15 Re-focus and Review  Overview 5 important challenges when Using RTI in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Schools and offer possible solution for teachers  Challenge #1: (slide #18) According to progress-monitoring data, more than half of the English language learners are not reaching benchmarks Recommendations (slide #19)  Challenge # 2 (slide #20) In many cases, our screening and progress monitoring assessment batteries do not provide a comprehensive view of literacy skills or identify our ELLs who are at-risk for later reading difficulties. Recommendations (slide #21)  Challenge # 3 (slide #22) School personnel are unclear how the RTI process is similar to and different from the Pre-Referral Process used in previous years Recommendations (slide #23)  Challenge # 4 (slide #24) School personnel are confused about Tier 2 interventions and wonder whether ESL services "count" as a secondary intervention Recommendations (slide #25)  Challenge # 5 (slide #26) School personnel are unclear about differences between learning to read in English as one’s first language and learning to read in English as a second or additional language Recommendations (slide #27) 12:15 -12:25 Video: Realizing the Potential of RTI: Response to Intervention for English Language Learners By: Janette Klingner, Ph.D., Professor in the School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OTegys-XE8 (6 minutes)  Responses and reflections to the video

12:25 -12:45 Consolidated Barriers Activity  Ask people to form small groups of 3- depending on the size of the workshop up to 4-5 groups in total. Have teachers use consolidated barriers sheet from their package, pick one category of barriers, study each section, and reflect on how this barrier might affect English language learners in their class and what some solutions are. Since this is an extensive list of problems, teachers only talk among themselves and will not share their responses with other groups. (see Appendix C) 12:45 -1:00 Response to Intervention for ELLs 16

Evaluation  Workshop participants will conduct a written workshop in terms of what they learned, the workshop's strengths, and areas to be improved (see Appendix D)

References Project Forum at National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

(2006). Project forum’s policy on response to intervention and early intervening

services: Barriers, policy recommendation and implementation considerations.

Retrieved April 29 from http://www.projectforum.org/docs/RtI-

EISPolicyForumBarriersPolicyRecommendationandImplementationConsiderations.pdf

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M.W. (2005). Response to Intervention:

Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.).

Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.

Garcia, O. & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for

English language learners.: New York: Teacher College Press.

Garcia, S. B. & Ortiz, A. A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority Response to Intervention for ELLs 17

students to special education. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education. 5, 1-21.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention

(RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.

Kirst, N. &. Wirt, F. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.). Richmond,

CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Klinger, J. (2006) Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading

Research Quarterly, 1, 108-117.

Orosco, M.J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language

learners: “Referring to RTI”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269-288.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003, June). Key indicators of Hispanic student achievement:

National goals and benchmarks for the next decade. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/hispanicindicators/

Vaughn, S. (2010) Response to Intervention in Reading for English Language Learners.

University of Texas and Alba Ortiz, Ph.D. Retrieved 04/26/2012 from

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/englishlanguagelearners

Vaughn, S. & Wanzek, J. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading

interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.

Virginia Department of Education (October, 2007). Responsive Instruction: Refining Our Work

of Teaching All Children Virginia’s “Response to Intervention” Initiative. Retrived April

26, 2012, from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/response_intervention/responsive_instruction.pdf Response to Intervention for ELLs 18

Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003).

Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students.

Submitted

by Development Associates, Inc. to U.S. Department of Education, Office of

English

Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement of

Limited

English Proficient Students.

Appendix A Response to Intervention for ELLs 19

RTI and English Language Learners:

Challenges & Possible Solutions

Exemplary Elementary Fairfax, VA May 20, 2011 Response to Intervention for ELLs 20

Presenter: Maryam Salahshoor

Purpose of the workshop:

This three-hour workshop focuses on basic background information on RTI, problems that teachers face in in implementing RTI with ELL, and problem solving skills and experiences through case studies working with ELL.

Objectives

Upon completion of this workshop, participants will be able to:  Describe RTI’s main purpose, three tiers, and interventions utilized in each tier.  Identify at least four main challenges teachers face in implementing RTI with English language learners.  Identify four solutions to above problems.  Describe and reflect on some challenges they and their co-workers face when implementing RTI for ELL.  Explore some resources and materials intended to enhance teacher’s skills in implementing RTI.

Session Outline

10:00- 10:05 Gathering and welcome

10:50- 10:15 Assessing background knowledge

10:15 – 10:20 Warm up activity:

10:20 – 11:00 Conceptualization: Focus and review

11:00 – 11:15 A short video on RTI’s three phases:

11:15 – 11:30 Break

11:30 -11:45 Reflection and Discussion

11:30 -12:15 Re-focus and Review

12:15 -12:25 Video

12:25 -12:45 Consolidated Barriers Activity

12:45 -1:00 Evaluation Response to Intervention for ELLs 21

Appendix B Response to Intervention (RTI) cloze activity Response to Intervention (RTI) is a ______approach to the early ______and support of students with learning and

______needs. The RTI process begins with high-quality instruction and universal ______of all children in the general education classroom. ______learners are provided with ______at increasing levels of intensity to accelerate their rate of______. These services may be provided by a variety of personnel, including general education teachers, special educators, and specialists. Progress is closely

______to assess both the learning rate and level of performance of individual students. Educational decisions about the ______and

______of interventions are based on individual student response to instruction.

Word bank Identification, Multi-tire, Duration, Screening, Behavior, Interventions, Struggling, Intensity, Monitored, Learning Appendix D Dear workshop participant: Response to Intervention for ELLs 22

Thank you for attending our workshop. In order to better serve your needs in the future on issues related to Response to Interventions for culturally and linguistically diverse students, we need to know about you viewpoints on what you have learned, the strengths of the workshop in meeting your needs and area of improvements where you might have recommendations for future workshops. Please answer the following three questions. Please provide your answers in space provided under each question.

1. What have you learned in this workshop?

2. What were the major strengths of the workshop?

3. What would you recommend to be improved?