response to intervention and english learners- rinaldi

[email protected] www.urbancollabora1ve.org www.edc.org personal blog:www.bilingualspecialed.com

Using Response to Interven/on (RTI) To Support English Learners (ELs)

Claudia Rinaldi, Ph.D.

Urban Special Educa/on Leadership Collabora/ve Educa/on Development Center (EDC), Inc.

1

How can RTI support ELLs

This part of the session will provide: •  Summary of study in MA •  Examples of 1 district -‐2 schools with different programs for ELLs within an RTI context

•  Recommenda/ons and resources

2

Study conducted for MA DESE on serving ELLs with with and without disabili1es •  Online survey of ELL and Special Educa/on Directors –  Responses from 64% of districts encompassing 94% of ELLs in the state

•  On-‐site interviews of principals and teachers at four schools & phone interviews with 5 districts –  Elementary, middle, and high schools

(www. hUps://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2013/ELL-‐disabili/es-‐report.pdf)

Parker, C. E., Avery, M.P., Fuxman, S., Lingan, A., Rinaldi, C., Sanchez, M.T., and Schmaberg, M. (2012). English language learners with disabili/es in MassachuseUs: Iden/fica/on, Instruc/on, and Challenges. A report to the MassachuseUs Department of Elementary and Secondary Educa/on, Malden, MA

Survey include explora1on of RTI/MTSS context for serving ELLs with and without disabili1es

RTI/MTSS is being interpreted and implemented in varied ways: •  Survey: those implemen/ng RTI/MTSS for more years were more likely to say it meets needs of ELLs with disabili/es

•  Some people describe old prac/ces with new terms •  MTSS has poten/al to reframe how to meet the needs of struggling ELLs

•  “UnwriUen rule” to wait 6 months to a year before pursuing special educa/on referral

4

MTSS implementa1on stage (n=269)

5

30

20

17

26

6 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Ins/tu/onalized implementa/on Year 5+ Full implementa/on Years 4-‐5 Refining implementa/on Years 2-‐3 Ini/al implementa/on Year 1 Planning Year 1

Not implemen/ng

Percentage affirming that their district’s MTSS (RTI) framework meets the needs of ELLs with disabili1es (n=173)

6

35

51

68

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Year 1 (planning or ini/al implementa/on)

Years 2-‐3 (refining implementa/on)

Years 4-‐5+ (ins/tu/onalized implementa/on)

RTI/MTSS Recommenda1ons

•  State, District, Schools: Promote the use, at the district and school levels, of the state-‐developed MTSS Self-‐Assessment tool to monitor MTSS integrity and fidelity of implementa/on, with a par/cular focus on MTSS for English language instruc/on for struggling ELLs.

•  District and School consensus of the RTI/MTSS model and infrastructure on collabora/on that includes ESL and SPED provider in planning and instruc/on and interven/on

7

Case Study: Boston Public Schools

•  Urban district 50,000+ students, 127 schools, 84 elementary and K-‐8 –  40% Hispanic, 36% Black, 13% White, 9% Asian, 2% mul/racial

–  75% students eligible for free and reduced lunch –  47% of ELLs speak another language as their L1 (85 languages/100 countries)

–  30% are ELL/LEP •  60% in language specific -‐Sheltered English Instruc/on (SEI) programs, 30% in general educa/on SEI programs, and 10% in dual language programs

–  20% special educa/on – Average class size: 22-‐25 elementary, >28 middle, >31 HS

8

Boston Public Schools RTI

•  Implementa/on started in 2010 •  88/127 schools in various levels of implementa/on

•  RTI model focus on problem-‐solving culturally responsive model-‐ with technical assistance by EDC

9

Elementary School –General Ed. SEI •  Garden Elementary School

–  6 years implementa/on – reorganized staff and iden/fied /ered instruc/on explicitly for all staff

–  Focus on professional development on RTI mul/-‐year –  Hired dually cer/fied personnel (general ed and ELL, or general ed and special ed, or special ed and ELL)

–  Reallocated reading specialist, dually cer/fied personnel (ELL & SPED) are grade level specialist, and provide 2 hours common planning/RTI data driven protocols

– Monitored data weekly at the grade level, monthly at school level and presented data walls 3 /mes per year to school community and created SMART goals

–  Implemented PBIS, RTI in Math over the years.

10

Example: Evidence-‐Based Reading Program

•  Curriculum –  Making Meaning –  Funda/ons Language Basics –  Beck Elements of Reading

•  Instruc/on –  Guided Reading –  Centers

•  Delivery Op/ons –  3-‐4 professionals per class –  Block scheduling by grade –  Reduce class size

•  Assessment –  Universal Screening –  Monthly ORF Probes –  DRA 3x per year

TIER 1

Example: Evidence-‐Based Reading Program v  TIER 1 Instruc1on + v  Curriculum Op1ons

1.  Great Leaps, Funda/ons Language Basics, 6 Minute solu/ons, Quick Reads or other as needed!

v  Instruc1onal Prac1ce v  Small group (1-‐4:1) v  Frequency

v  (1X/week-‐ 5X/week) v  Delivery op1ons

v  Teacher v  Para and/or intern from BC

(master’s level) v  Assessment

v  Weekly ORF probes v  DRA 3x per year

TIER 2

Example: Evidence-‐Based Reading Program TIER 1 & 2 +

v Curriculum op/ons v LiPS, Project Read, V & V v ESL SIOP Lessons

v  Instruc/on v 1:1 or 1:2 v Push-‐in and/or pull-‐out

v  Delivery Op/ons v Special educa/on teacher

v Assessment v  IEP goals & Objec/ves v Daily reading probes v DRA-‐ 3 /mes per year v Others as per program

Screening & Progress Monitoring Prac1ces

1. Screening all students at Lakeshore Ø  Iden/fy /er 1, 2, & 3 by grade level

2. Administer one minute /med measures Ø  Students in Tier 1 (3 /mes per year -‐Sep., Dec., & May) Ø  Students in Tier 2 Tier 2 (1 per month) Ø  Students in Tier 3 Tier 3 (1 per week)

3. Meet with RTI/PM Team once per month and discuss all students in your class & grade Ø  Monitor academic interven/ons & progress Ø  Movement in /er by progress Ø  Monitor social-‐behavioral-‐health services & monitor

A Teacher Shares…

• “RTI has helped teams collaborate to support all students & specially ELLs”

Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, P., & Cardarelli, A. (2010). Teachers” percep/ons of RTI reform in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualita/ve analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(2), 47-‐63.

Impact of RTI on ELLs As you learn from data the can be more strategic:

1.  In K2 there were no differences between Non-‐English language learners and English Language Learners (ELLs) in risk status according to leUer naming fluency (LNF).

2.  In 1st grade, ELLs significantly drop below when the stakes go up from LNF to ORF As

3.  As non-‐ELLs progress from 1st grade to 5th grade their risk decreases

4.  As ELLs progress from 1st grade to 5th grade the gap widens

OUTCOME – strategic planning and realloca/on of resources and EBP

Sample Interven1ons and Instruc1onal Recommenda1ons

•  Peer-‐assisted learning is an effec/ve interven/on strategy (PALS) – Found effec/ve with ELLs to improve both literacy skills and oral language development

– Described in What Works Clearinghouse at hUp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/english_lang/pals/index.asp

•  Home page & videos: hUp://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/


Early literacy instruc/on should focus on a combina/on of skills

–  Should include 5 pillars of literacy + oral language development

–  Examples: Na/onal Center for Response to interven/on (www.r/4success) instruc/onal interven/ons tools chart (hUp://r/4success.org/instruc/onTools)


Background Knowledge & Vocabulary Instruc/on in all /ers. For full report “Effec/ve Literacy and English Language Instruc/on for English Learners in the Elementary Grades” – click here hUp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Prac/ceGuide.aspx?sid=6


For older students Instruc/on and interven/ons should use cogni/ve strategies.

–  Reciprocal teaching –  Collabora/ve Strategic Reading

•  Addi/onal resources •  Vaughn Gross Center for Reading & Language Arts hUp://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/

•  Florida Center for Reading Research hUp://www.fcrr.org/ •  US. DOE Prac/ces Guides/ What Works •  Margarita Calderon hUp://margaritacalderon.org/

Case Study 2: Dual Language Program Implemen1ng RTI

•  Spanish/English Dual Language School •  75.1% of students are Hispanic, 16.4% White, 6.4% African-‐American, 2% mul/-‐racial,

•  55.8% ELLs •  72.2% Low income •  Began implementa/on of RTI 4 years ago with K-‐2 grades only

21

Results of Unpacking! •  In 2010-‐11, developed a living document Hurley Founda/onal Skills Ac/vity Bank in both languages and by area of reading skill –  to develop each of the 5 cri/cal literacy skills in whole and small group instruc/on

•  In 2012-‐13, agreed on “daily reading diet” –  created binders with increasingly rigorous ac/vi/es of each of the 5 founda/onal skills for interac/ve centers in grades K-‐1, 2-‐3, and 4-‐5. Decided on whole group, small group, paired learning evidenced-‐based instruc/on during core instruc/on.

•  Rolled out PALS as a universal Tier 1 interven/on monitored fidelity

How did they use RTI data for instruc1onal planning at Tier 1 CORE

•  Analyze BOY, MOY & EOY data to determine: 1.  How many students are making adequate progress with

Tier 1 CORE instruc/on? 2.  How many students need more intensive through Tier 2

and Tier 3 interven/ons? 3.  How effec/ve 2-‐way model is for building reading

founda/on in L1 and transferring skills to L2?

•  Iden1fy cri1cal skills to systema1cally target in the CORE in each grade & connect progress in those skills to goal sebng in Educator Evalua1ons

Using Data for Instruc1onal Planning for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interven1ons

•  Analyze BOY and MOY data to iden1fy students needing supplemental support in targeted skills in each grade: 1.  K2 – phonemic segmenta/on 2.  G1 – phonics 3.  G2-‐G3 – fluency prac/ce and comprehension in

both languages (DIBELS, IDEL, DRA, F & P)

Structured Professional Development Aligned by Tier of Implementa1on

•  Professional development sessions – Focus on increasing academic engaged /me-‐ac/ve learning

– Grades K-‐2 did CCL on fluency with focus on automa/city then prosodic reading via Readers Theater

– Literacy Coach recruited volunteers and teachers to do Tier 2 interven/ons (working with a small group of students on an iden/fied skill 2-‐3 /mes a week for 20 minutes)

Data wall- Dual Language K-3 Dominant Languages – English & Spanish Fluency

Values used in Fluency : K-‐FSP & PSG , 1st-‐ ORF/FLO, FSF 2nd-‐3rd-‐ ORF, FLO Comprehension: K-‐3rd – TRC

Data Wall- Grades K-3 Dominant Languages Spanish & English Reading Comprehension

% of students Meeting Tier1 grade level Benchmarks Or below For Tier 2 & 3

What did the 2011-‐2012 Benchmarking Data Tell Us?

•  Good growth in reading comprehension in both English and Spanish dominant languages

•  Limited growth in fluency in both Spanish and English •  Students not engaging in oral language prac/ce in Spanish

where the data show less growth in fluency •  Needed to iden/fy an interven/on to improve fluency, oral

language and ul/mately comprehension in our Tier 1 Core •  Iden/fied Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) (Fuchs &

Fuchs, 2002;2005) peer mediated learning with reciprocal teaching strategies-‐

Addi1onal Resources •  State: Iden/fy research-‐based web-‐based sources that provide guidance on interven/ons and other components of the model –  Na/onal Center for Response to Interven/on at www.r/4success.org –  Na/onal Center on Intensive Interven/ons at

hUp://www.intensiveinterven/on.org/). –  Na/onal Center for Learning Disabili/es’ RTI Ac/on Network and

Schools transforma/on project at www.r/network.org or www.ncld.org •  Rinaldi-‐ Tier 2 Ask the experts Tier 2 for ELLs -‐-‐hUp://r/network.org/connect/593-‐

diversity-‐and-‐dispropor/onality-‐q7

•  WIDE RTI ELLs Posi/on Statement “ Developing a Culturally and Linguis/cally Responsive Approach to Response to Instruc/on & Interven/on (RtI.) for English Language Learners

29

References

•  Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Language and reading interven/ons for English language learners and English language learners with disabili/es. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corpora/on, Center on Instruc/on.

•  Rinaldi, C., Higgings, A.O., & Stuart, S. K., Educators’ three-‐year percep/ons of an RTI reform effort in an urban elementary school. Manuscript accepted for publica/on in the Journal of Educa9on.

•  Stuart, S.K., Rinaldi, C., & Higgins A, O (2011). Agents of change: Voices of teachers on response to interven/on. Interna9onal Journal of Whole Schooling, 7(2), pp. 53-‐73.

•  Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, P., & Cardarelli, A. (2010). Teachers’ percep/ons of RTI reform in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualita/ve analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(2), 47-‐63.

•  Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-‐Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assis/ng students struggling with reading: Response to Interven/on PR/Award # H326M110001 Page e968 and mul/-‐/er interven/on for reading in the primary grades. A prac/ce guide. (NCEE 2009-‐4045). Washington, DC: Na/onal Center for Educa/on Evalua/on and Regional Assistance, Ins/tute of Educa/on Sciences, U.S. Department of Educa/on. Retrieved from hUp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publica/ons/prac/ceguides/

•  Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G. Smith, D.C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making Classrooms more Responsive to Diversity, American Educational Research Journal, vol 34, 174-206.