Response to Intervention and Students of Culturally and LinguisticallyDiverse Backgrounds: Issues an

1
Response to Intervention and Students of
Culturally and Linguistically-Diverse
Backgrounds Issues and Implications

• Todd A. Savage, Ph.D., NCSP
• Scott A. Woitaszewski, Ph.D.
• University of Wisconsin-River Falls
• October 31, 2008
• WSPA Fall Conference - LaCrosse, Wisconsin

2
Objectives

• Heighten participants awareness about their
  current knowledge and skills related to RtI and
  culturally-responsive practice
• Assist participants in adapting the knowledge and
  skills they already demonstrate to meet the
  academic needs of a particular subset of students
  from culturally and linguistically-diverse
  backgrounds, namely students who are
  English-language learners
• Aid the participant in extrapolating this
  knowledge and these skills to their work with
  students from other culturally and
  linguistically-diverse backgrounds.

3
Agenda

• Welcome and introductions
• Presentation of session objectives
• Agenda
• KWLAS
• Review of RtI
• Defining culture
• Culturally-responsive practice
• Second-language acquisition issues
• Applications to RtI
• Interventions
• Session dialogue
• KWLAS
• Wrap-up and session evaluation

4
KWLAS

• What do you know?
• What do you want to learn?

5
Context

• Lets Get on the Same Page

6
Response to Intervention

• A systematic process of using data to enhance
  student learning (Burns, 2008)
• Embedded in public policy
• General education initiative
• Three-tiered model
• Emphasis for many has been on academics but it
  can (and should?) target behavior and mental
  health issues, as well
• RtI is not culturally sensitive and responsive
  in-and-of itself

7
Defining Culture

• Ingraham (2000) defined culture broadly to
  include an organized set of thoughts, beliefs,
  and norms for interaction and communication, all
  of which may influence cognitions, behaviors, and
  perceptions (p. 325).
• Culture is influenced by ones race, ethnicity,
  language, age, gender, gender expression, sexual
  orientation, socioeconomic status, ability,
  religion/spirituality, and other identities.
• For the purposes of this presentation, the focus
  will be on one specific aspect of cultural
  identity, namely that of language.

8
Culturally-Responsive Practice

• Using the cultural knowledge, prior
  experiences, frames of reference, and performance
  styles of ethnically diverse students to make
  learning encounters more relevant to and
  effective for them (Gay, 2000, p. 29)
• Validating
• Comprehensive
• Multidimensional
• Empowering
• Transformative
• Emancipatory

9
Question

• How can we, as school psychologists, contribute
  to a culturally-responsive education climate,
  overall, and how can we function as such in our
  own practice, particularly in terms of the RtI
  process?

10
Focus

• Lets Examine the Issues of Focus Here as they
  Pertain to Students Who are English-Language
  Learners

11
Second-Language Acquisition

• Second-language acquisition can be characterized
  as a developmental process (see Krashen, 1982)
• Preproduction
• Minimal comprehension and production, focused on
  comprehension
• Early production
• Limited comprehension, production of isolated
  words
• Speech emergence
• Good comprehension, limited vocabulary, literal,
  errors in grammar
• Intermediate fluency
• Excellent comprehension, few errors, elaborate
  conversations
• Advanced fluency
• Well-developed receptive and expressive language
  skills

12
BICS CALPS

• Cummins (1984) described the incremental process
  through which people progress in acquiring a
  second langauge (L2).
• BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills)
• Social language skills
• Are the first L2 skills to develop
• Do not require formal instruction, steeped in
  context
• 1-3 years of constant exposure to a language

13
BICS CALPS (continued)

• CALPS (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
  Skills)
• Connected to academic experiences
• More abstract, build on ones BICS development
• Reliant on formal schooling and explicit
  instruction
• 5-10 years of constant exposure to a language
• English-language learners who have well-developed
  CALPS in their native languages are able to
  develop CALPS in English at a faster rate
  conversely, those persons with less
  well-developed CALPS in their native languages
  may experience challenges in developing CALPS in
  English.

14
Bilingual Education

• English as a Second Language (ESL)
• Pull-out, specified periods focus on BICS (vs.
  CALPS)
• Structured Immersion
• All ELLs instruction in English typically, no
  L1 support
• Transitional bilingual education
• Most ELLs some L1 instruction, emphasizes
  English ASAP
• Maintenance bilingual education
• Most ELLs lots of L1 instruction develop L1
  L2 CALPS
• Two-way (dual language) bilingual education
• ½ ½ develop CALPS in both L1, L2 for both
  groups

15
Question

• Based on the information just presented related
  to second-language acquisition, what are the
  implications for schooling, in general, and for
  the RtI and special education processes,
  specifically?

16
Practice

• Lets Apply What We Know and What Were Learning

17
L2 Acquisition, Disability, or Both?

• With some students who are English-language
  learners, it may be difficult to differentiate
  they are experiencing academic, behavioral,
  and/or social challenges due to L2 acquisition, a
  true disability, or both.
• Rule-out language acquisition as the issue first.
• Investigate BICS CALP in both languages
• Educational history (attendance, instruction,
  etc.)
• Interviews (family, teachers)

18
How Did We Get Here?

• The population of ELL students is growing
  significantly (National Clearinghouse for English
  Language Acquisition, 2005)
• ELL students have become heavily over-represented
  in special education (Case Taylor, 2005)
• There are few appropriate/valid appraisal
  instruments to determine if struggles are due to
  limited English, a learning disability, or other
  issues (Klingner, Artiles, Bareletta, 2006)
• The discrepancy model for determining LD has
  limited usefulness when working with ELL students
  (Vanderwood Nam, 2008)

19
What about RtI for ELLs?

• RtI has the potential to address the limitations
  of the traditional aptitude-achievement
  discrepancy model and to reduce the impact of
  language proficiency and culture on evaluations
  of student performance. (Vanderwood Nam, 2008)
• Still limited evidence for this approach with
  ELL. Can we
• Lessen over-representation?
• Conduct fair and appropriate assessments?
• Develop appropriate methods for intervention?

20
Fair Appropriate Assessment

• Start with an ecological framework, considering
  all internal and external factors influencing
  academic functioning (Ortiz, 2002)
• Any tool should include target students in the
  norm sample (most do not include ELL)
• Any low score should reflect a true deficit, not
  a language proficiency issue
• Strong evidence that measures of phonological
  awareness help identify ELL students at-risk for
  reading problems (cross-linguistic transfer)
  (Vanderwood Nam, 2008)

21
Intervention

• Synthesizing Information from the Literature

22
To BeginEmphasize Resilient Classrooms!

• Change the kid strategies are less effective
  (Doll Lyon, 1998)
• Not enough school mental health professionals to
  meet the needs
• Classroom-wide systematic approaches lay the
  foundation for active learning

23
Building Resilient Classrooms(Doll, Zucker,
Brehm, 2004)

• Student-teacher relationships
• STARS banking time (Pianta Hamre, 2001)
• Interest in daily lives (celebrations and
  disappointments)
• ELL students dialogue with teachers about
  assignments assignments that allow incorporation
  of culture (Doherty Hilberg, 2007)
• Building a diverse classroom library

24
Building Resilient Classrooms(see Doll, Zucker,
Brehm, 2004)

• Peer relationships
• Cooperative learning and group completion of
  assignments (ELL) (Fletcher, Boss, Johnson,
  1999 Wentzel Watkins, 2002)
• Incidental activities are as good or better than
  pull-out social skills groups (Luellen, 2003)
• Home-school relationships
• Going the extra mile to better understand family
  values and cultural differences (e.g., home
  visits, attending cultural community event)
  (Kalyanpur Harry, 1999)
• Parent involvement of culturally and
  linguistically diverse students is correlated
  with student improved academic performance (de
  Valenzuela, Baca, Baca, 2004)
• Inviting parents to share their input, knowledge,
  and expertise about community needs
• Provide interpreters

25
Evidence-Based Reading Interventions for ELL
Students

• Intense, early small-group phonological awareness
  instruction (Lesaux Siegel, 2003, Healy,
  Vanderwood, Edelston, 2005)
• First grade ELL students screened with DIBELS
  phonological awareness and phonics
• 15 lowest performers received two 30-minute
  interventions weekly
• After 20, weeks all but two had not reached goal
  (often similar to monolingual peers)
• Fluency building programs (e.g., Read Naturally)
  (De La Colina, Parker, Hasbrouck, Lara-Alecio,
  2001).
• Comprehension building in middle-school ELL
  students - Cross-age tutoring along with
  reciprocal teaching may help reading (Klingner
  Vaughn, 1996)

26
Intervention Integrity

• Defined as Ensuring that the agreed upon
  intervention is implemented as planned
• Track intervention integrity intermittently
• Strive for at least an 80 level of step
  completion
• (Gresham et al., 2000)
• Why is intervention integrity so important?
• Avoid the consult and hope strategy
• If low integrity, the outcomes are by nature
  unclear
• A necessary but insufficient intervention
  component

27
Evaluating Intervention Integrity(Gresham et
al., 2000)

• Brief and simple processes can be developed
• Direct Observation independent observer records
  if intervention steps were or were not
  implemented as planned (Strive for 80 )
• Self-Report individual implementing
  intervention records if intervention steps were
  or were not implemented as planned (Strive for
  80 )
• Interview - the intervention implementer is
  interviewed to check if intervention steps were
  or were not implemented as planned (Strive for
  80 )

28
Dialogue

• Lets Talk about Whats Going on for Us in this
  Moment and Where We Go from Here

29
KWLAS

• What did you learn?
• How will you applied what you learned?
• What to you still want to know?

30
Dialogue Prompts

• What new learning or thinking has occurred for
  you as you reflect on this presentation?
• What questions remain or have emerged for you?
• What potential do you see as you continue to
  reflect and to apply what you have learned?
• What challenges or frustrations do you anticipate
  as you work to be culturally responsive in your
  work, particularly as it relates to the RtI
  process?
• Now what? Where do we go from here?

31
Follow-Up Information

• To view and/or download this PowerPoint
  presentation, please, visit the UWRF school
  psychology homepage
• www.uwrf.edu/csp/schoolpsychprogram.htm
• Todd A. Savage
• todd.savage_at_uwrf.edu
• [phone]
• Scott A. Woitaszewski
• scott.woitaszewski_at_uwrf.edu
• [phone]

32
References

• Case, R. E., Taylor, S. S. (2005) Language
  difference or learning disability? Answers from a
  linguistic perspective. The Clearing House, 78,
  127-130.Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and
  special education Issues in assessment and
  pedagogy. Clevedon, England Multiligual Matters.
  De La Colina, M. G., Parker, R. I., Hasbrouck,
  J. E., Lara-Alecio, R. (2001). Intensive
  intervention in reading fluency for at-risk
  beginning Spanish readers. Bilingual Research
  Journal, 25, 503-538.de Valenzuela, J. S.,
  Baca, L. , Baca, E. (2004). Family involvement
  in bilingual special education Challenging the
  norm. In L. M. Baca H. T. Cervantes (Eds.),
  The bilingual special education interface (4th
  ed., pp. 360-381). Upper Saddle River, NJ
  Pearson.Doll, B., Lyon, M. (1998). Risk and
  resilience Implications for the practice of
  school psychology. School Psychology Review, 27,
  348-363.Doll, B., Zucker, S., Brehm, K.
  (2004). Resilient classrooms Creating healthy
  environments for learning. New York Guilford
  Press.Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive
  teaching Theory, research, practice. New York
  Teachers College Press.

33
References, continued

• Hakuta, K. (1999). Commentary The debate on
  bilingual education. Developmental and behavioral
  pediatrics, 20, 36-37.Healy, K., Vanderwood,
  M., Edelston, D. (2005). Early literacy
  interventions for English language learners
  Support for an RTI model. The California School
  Psychologist, 10, 55-63.Ingraham, C. L. (2000).
  Consultation through a multicultural lens
  Multicultural and cross-cultural consultation in
  schools. School Psychology Review, 29,
  320-343.Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J.,
  Bareletta, L. M. (2006). English language
  learners who struggle with reading Language
  acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning
  Disabilities, 39, 108-128. Klinger, J. K.,
  Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading
  comprehension strategies for students with
  learning disabilities who use English as a second
  language. Elementary School Journal, 96,
  275-293.Krashan, S. D. (1982). Principles and
  practice in second language acquisition. New
  York Pergamon.Lesaux, N. K., Siegel, L S.
  (2003). The development of reading in children
  who speak English as a second language.
  Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005-1019.Lopez,
  E. C. (2006). English language learners. In G.G.
  Bear K. M. Minke (Eds.), Childrens needs (3rd
  ed., pp. 647-659). Bethesda, MD National
  Association of School Psychologists.

34
References, continued

• Luellen, W. S. (2003, February). The
  effectiveness of social skills training for
  children with disturbed peer relationships
  A review of meta-analyses. NASP Communique,
  31(5), 38-39.National Clearinghouse for English
  Language Acquisition (2005). The growing numbers
  of LEP students 2003-2004 poster. Washington DC
  Author.Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K. (2001).
  STARS Students, teachers, and relationship
  support-consultants manual. Lutz,
  FL Psychological Assessment Resources.Ortiz,
  S. O. (2002). Best practices in nondiscriminatory
  assessment. In A. Thomas J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
  practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp.
  1321-1336). Bethesda, MD National Association of
  School Psychologists.Vanderwood, M. L., Nam,
  J. (2008). Best practices in assessing and
  improving English language learners
  literacy performance. In A. Thomas J. Grimes
  (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th
  ed., pp. 1847-1855). Bethesda, MD National
  Association of School Psychologists.Wentzel, K.
  R., Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships
  and collaborative learning as contexts for
  academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31,
  366-377.