ConsiderationsWhen Using RTI Models with Culturally and Linguistically DiverseStudents

1
Considerations When Using RTI Models with
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

• Janette Klingner
• University of Colorado at Boulder
• National Center for Culturally Responsive
  Educational Systems

2
Response to Intervention Models

• In the newly reauthorized IDEA, eligibility and
  identification criteria for LD have changed
  614(b)(6)(A)-(B)
• When determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability
• The LEA is not required to consider a severe
  discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
  ability.
• The LEA may use a process that determines if a
  child responds to scientific, research-based
  intervention as part of the evaluation.

3
Early Intervening Services

• LEAs can use up to 15 of their federal IDEA
  funds to provide academic and behavioral services
  to support prevention and early identification
  for struggling learners in K-12 (with a
  particular emphasis on K-3 students) who are not
  currently identified as needing special education
  or related services, but who need additional
  academic and behavioral support to succeed in
  general education P.L. 108-446, 613(f) (l).

4
Early Intervening Services

• LEAs can also use up to 50 of any increases in
  Title I funds for early intervening services.
• Funds may be used for professional development of
  non-special education staff as well as for
  RTI-related activities.

5
EIS and Disproportionality

• Any LEA identified as having significant
  disproportionality based on race and ethnicity
  must reserve the maximum amount of funds under
  section 613(f) of the Act to provide
  comprehensive coordinated early intervening
  services to serve children in the LEA,
  particularly, but not exclusively, children in
  those groups that were significantly
  over-identified 300.646(b)(2).

6
Overview of RTI as Commonly Conceptualized
7
Response to Intervention A Three-tiered Model

• Intensive assistance,
• as part of
• general education
• support system

• Special
• Education

Research-based instruction in general education
classroom
8
RTI Models

• The 2 most common RTI models are
• Standard Treatment Protocol
• Problem-Solving
• What model is best for culturally and
  linguistically diverse students?

9
Standard Treatment Protocol Model

• The same empirically validated treatment is used
  for all children with similar problems and
  achievement is measured against benchmarks
  (NASDSE, 2006).
• The interventions are chosen from an approved
  list.

10
How appropriate is the standard protocol model
with CLD students?

• Proponents argue that this is the most
  research-based of the RTI approaches, and leaves
  less room for error in professional judgment
  (Fuchs Fuchs, 2006).
• Yet the standard protocol model requires
  research-based interventions and there are only a
  few programs that have been researched
  specifically with CLD students and/or students in
  low SES communities.
• For example, a program may not provide enough
  focus on oracy and vocabulary for English
  language learners.

11
Problem-Solving Model

• The problem-solving model is a more
  individualized or personalized approach.
• Interventions are planned specifically for the
  targeted student and are provided over a
  reasonable period of time.
• This approach maximizes problem-solving
  opportunities by allowing teams to be flexible.
• Professional expertise is valued.

12
Problem-Solving Model (NASDSE, 2005)
13
How appropriate is the problem-solving model with
CLD students?

• The problem-solving model appears to be more
  appropriate for use with CLD students IF the
  focus is on understanding external or
  environmental factors that affect the childs
  opportunity to learn in addition to within child
  factors.
• For this model to work, team members must have
  expertise in cultural and linguistic diversity
  and be knowledgeable about interventions that
  have been effective with CLD students with
  different needs.

14

• Some have suggested that multi-tier systems
  might use either a problem-solving method or a
  standard treatment protocol approach. This is an
  artificial distinction. All RTI systems must
  consider implementing the best features of both
  approaches (NASDSE, 2005).

15
Changing Roles

• These roles (with RTI) will require some
  fundamental changes in the way general education
  and special education engage in assessment and
  intervention activities (NASP, 2006).

Feasibility
16
RTI is Fundamentally Different

• High above the hushed
• crowd, Rex tried to remain
• focused. Still, he couldnt
• shake one nagging
• thought He was an old
• dog and this was a new
• trick.
• The Far Side

17
Reflection

• What is needed for RTI to be effective,
  appropriate and equitable for all students,
  including culturally and linguistically diverse
  students?

18
Assumptions Underlying RTI that May Be
Problematic with Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse Students
19
Assumption 1 Evidence-based instruction is
good instruction for everyone. English language
learners who have been taught with generic
evidence-based interventions have been provided
with sufficient opportunities to learn.
20
What Do We Mean by Evidence-based?

• The RTI model is based on the principle that
  instructional practices or interventions at each
  level should be based on scientific research
  evidence about what works.
• However, it is essential to find out what works
  with whom, by whom, and in what contexts

One size does not fit all.
21

• Many approaches recommended as being
  evidence-based have not been validated with ELLS
  or in school contexts similar to those in which
  many ELLs are educated.
• The National Reading Panel report did not
  address issues relevant to second language
  learning (2000, p. 3).
• Research can only help us make an educated guess
  about which practice is most likely to be
  effective with the majority of students, not
  which practice will work with everyone.
• Schools should select evidence-based
  interventions shown to be effective with students
  similar to their population.

22
Assumption 2 Learning to read in ones second
language is similar to learning to read in ones
first language therefore instructional
approaches that have been found to be effective
with mainstream English-speaking students are
appropriate for serving ELLs.
23

• Although the developmental processes are similar
  when learning to read in a first or second
  language, there are important differences that
  must be taken into account when planning for
  instruction and assessing student progress.
• Most teachers are not adequately prepared to
  teach ELLs.
• Districts and schools should provide professional
  development in teaching reading to ELLs, and
  teachers should do all they can to learn about
  working with ELLs.

24
Assumption 3 Students who fail to respond to
research-based instruction have some sort of
learning problem or internal deficit, and perhaps
even a learning disability.
25

• There are many reasons a child may not respond to
  instruction.
• The method is not effective with this child, and
  a different approach would yield better results.
  
• The level of instruction might not be a good
  match for the child.
• The environment might not be conducive to
  learning.
• It is important to look in classrooms and observe
  instruction, and also to try different
  approaches, before determining that a child may
  have a disability.

26
RTI at Marble Mountain Elementary

• Marble Mountain Elementary School has just begun
  to implement RTI. Their student population is 92
  Latino (of whom 53 are ELLs).
• North County School District selected Marble
  Mountain as a pilot school for RTI because of
  concerns about the high of ELLs receiving
  special education services (31) and the schools
  low performance on state tests.
• The district carefully collected research about
  RTI and felt confident that they were
  recommending the most effective RTI model.
• They provided 3 days of professional development
  on how to implement RTI (e.g., do progress
  monitoring).
• Yet no sooner had the year begun than the
  educators at Marble Mountain began to experience
  challenges

27
Challenge 1 According to progress-monitoring
data, more than half of the ELLs in each
first-grade class are not reaching benchmarks. It
is not feasible to provide Tier 2 instruction to
all of these students.
28

• When many students are not progressing, the first
  step should be to change the instruction
• Examine the program to determine if it has been
  validated with students like those in the class
• Determine whether instruction is at an
  appropriate level for students and the program is
  well-implemented and
• Establish whether teachers are sufficiently
  differentiating instruction to meet diverse
  student needs.
• Determining whether a program is well-implemented
  necessitates observing in classrooms.
• The program might be an appropriate one, but the
  teacher is not using it with fidelity.
• The teacher might be struggling with classroom
  management and/or creating a supportive learning
  environment.
• The teacher may not know how to differentiate
  instruction.

29
Challenge 2 Teachers and other school personnel
are not clear how the RTI process is similar to
and different from the Pre-Referral Process they
used in previous years. Their RTI meetings look
very much like the Child Study Team Meetings of
old.
30

• Discussions still center on possible reasons for
  a childs struggles from a deficit perspective.
• There still seems to be a push to place students
  in special education.
• It is natural that it will take time for school
  personnel to shift their thinking from one of
  figuring out what is wrong with a student to one
  of looking more broadly at the instructional
  context and at how to provide support for all
  students who need help, regardless of label.
• During this transition period, try focusing on
  ways to improve Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction and
  interventions to be more appropriate for ELLs,
  and for all students.
• Make sure someone on the team is well-prepared in
  how to work with ELLs and in how to distinguish
  between language acquisition and a learning
  disability.

31
Challenge 3 School personnel are confused about
Tier 2 interventions. They wonder (a) whether
ELL services "count" as a secondary intervention,
and (b) whether a special education teacher can
provide Tier 2 interventions.
32

• Only those small group interventions that are
  supplemental to the core curriculum and based on
  students needs as assessed by universal
  screening and progress monitoring can be
  considered Tier 2 interventions.
• English language development should be part of
  Tier 1, though a multi-tiered model could be
  applied for supporting students language
  acquisition.
• Although the special education teacher can serve
  as a consultant regarding Tier 2 interventions,
  and may even provide Tier 2 interventions from
  time to time, this should not be her primary
  role, and she should not be the schools main
  Tier 2 intervention provider. Tier 2 is the
  domain of general education.

33
Tier 1 Example

• This excerpt is from a 1st grade classroom.

34

• The whole Class is sitting in a circle (on the
  A-B-C rug), with the teacher seated at the head.
  Teacher says, Yesterday, how many of you knew
  your sight words? One student speaks out, One?
  Another, Three? Teacher replies, You are
  right. Three students were able to tell me their
  sight words. We need to practice these words we
  are really behind. Every one of you should know
  these sight words by now. You need to practice
  these at home. Dont you practice these at
  home? Teacher says this with frustration in her
  face and voice. Teacher states, Only those 3
  students will be able to pull from the treasure
  chest. Teacher begins sight words practice
  and holds up index cards with-Big, My, See, Like,
  I, At, This, And, Up, Have, Too. Students repeat
  sight words as Teacher holds up index cards. This
  is a repetitive process. She holds up the word
  Big without saying anything. One student says
  the word Big. She holds up a another. See.
  The same student says the word again. She holds
  up the word see again and tells the student who
  knew the previous answer not to say anything.
  Pause. Another says see. She continues to go
  through this process with all the words, and
  says, Okay guys, you need to practice these at
  home, you are not paying attention, you should
  have known these words by now. (Orosco, 2007)

35
Tier 2 Example

• The literacy teacher provides Tier 2
  interventions. In the following excerpt, the
  literacy teacher reinforcing a previous literacy
  lesson that the homeroom teacher had started on
  Zebras.

36

• Literacy teacher This book is called Zebra
  Play. She starts singing, One little Zebra went
  out to play, on the savanna one fine day. (He)
  had such enormous fun. He asked another zebra to
  come. Literacy teacher prompts one student to
  take off running like a Zebra. One student runs
  around the classroom (acting like a zebra).
  Literacy specialist picks another student to do
  the same. She then picks another and so forth.
  Literacy teacher is doing choral singing of
  Zebra Play as students run around the
  classroom. They grew tired as they ran around.
  Therefore, they all lay down Students are
  running around however, they are not singing or
  chanting the Zebra Play they are just playing
  and running into each other. (Orosco, 2007)

37
Tier 3 Example

• The teacher has a masters degree in special
  education and has been teaching for 20 years. She
  noted, I teach LD by the book.
• She is teaching 4 second-grade English language
  learners, all determined to have learning
  disabilities.

38

• Teacher Boys and girls, we need to read our
  story, Polar Bears. We need to listen to see
  what color they are, where they live or what they
  eat. Teacher directs students to look at the
  title page, asks what they think the book is
  about. No response. Teacher asks, Are polar
  bears nice? No response. Teacher begins to read
  Polar Bears live in the Arctic at the North
  Pole. The polar bear is a marine mammal Polar
  bears are carnivores OC I wonder how many
  students know what a marine mammal is, or a
  carnivore. As she reads this story, she has no
  dialogue with the students. Teacher, Polar
  bears are covered with heavy fur. The color can
  vary from pure white to a more yellow hue... As
  she is reading students are beginning to check
  out one student is playing with the drawstring
  in his hooded sweater. Another two are whispering
  to each other.

39

• Teacher continues The white fur is important
  camouflage for the bears as they hunt their prey
  on the ice OC What is camouflage? This story
  uses tough words for ESL students at this level.
  I wonder if the teacher knows whether these kids
  really understand this. Teacher Okay lets
  talk about the story now. So what do they smell?
  No reply. Teacher, Anyone? One student,
  People. Teacher, Good. This was not in the
  story. Teacher, Do polar bears live hear in
  Colorado? Students, Yes. Teacher, Good. They
  could if they lived at the zoo. Colorado was
  not in the story. Only one student is
  responding, with one word answers. OC I wonder
  if this book is too difficult for them. However,
  it would work for these kids if the language was
  modeled and sheltered for them... (Orosco, 2007)

40

• Are the teachers implementing evidence-based
  instruction? Why do you think this?
• What do you conclude about these students
  opportunity to learn?
• What would you do?

41
RTI Models in Diverse Schools

• What would RTI models look like that foreground
  language and culture and are responsive and
  appropriate for all students?

42
A Culturally Linguistically Appropriate RTI
Model

• Special
• Education

• Intensive assistance
• as part of
• general education
• support system,
• ongoing monitoring

Ongoing problem-solving by a collaborative team
with relevant expertise
Culturally and linguistically appropriate
instruction in GE, with progress monitoring
43

• RTI requires a shift from a within-child deficit
  paradigm to an eco-behavioral perspective (NASP,
  2006).

44
An RTI Framework for Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students

• RTI models for CLD students should include
• culturally and linguistically appropriate quality
  instruction at each level
• a systematic process for examining the classroom
  context
• a systematic process for examining background
  variables that impact academic achievement
• (e.g., first and second language proficiency,
  educational history including bilingual models,
  mobility, socioeconomic status)
• progress monitoring as well as informal
  assessments to guide instructional and
  intervention planning

45
1st Tier

• The foundation of the first tier should be
  culturally and linguistically responsive, quality
  evidence-based instruction with on-going progress
  monitoring.
• Tier 1 includes these essential components
• a supportive, motivating learning environment
• research-based, appropriate core instruction
  (validated with similar students, in similar
  contexts)
• knowledgeable, skilled, caring, culturally
  responsive teachers and
• differentiation to meet students needs.

46
Tier 1 Guiding Questions

• When a child shows signs of struggling, the first
  step should be to observe in her classroom.
• Is instruction targeted to and appropriate for
  the students level of English proficiency and
  learning needs?
• Is the teacher implementing appropriate
  research-based practices with fidelity?
• Does the classroom environment seem conducive to
  learning?
• Are the students true peers succeeding?

47

• The next step should be to collect student data
• Has consideration been given to the childs
  cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and
  experiential background?
• Have authentic assessments been used in addition
  to progress monitoring?
• What tasks can the student perform and in what
  contexts?
• Does the student differ from true peers in rate
  and level of learning?
• Has the childs family been asked for their input?

48
2nd Tier

• This tier is characterized as providing a level
  of intensive support that supplements the core
  curriculum and is based on student needs as
  identified through progress monitoring and other
  means by a problem-solving or intervention team.

49
The Problem-Solving Team

• The problem-solving team may become involved
  during Tier 1 or Tier 2.
• The make-up of the team should be diverse and
  include members with expertise in culturally
  responsive instruction, and, if appropriate,
  expertise in English language acquisition and
  bilingual education.

50
3rd Tier

• This tier might be considered special education.
• Interventions are tailored to the individual
  needs of the student.
• Interventions are more intensive and of a longer
  duration than at previous tiers.
• Due process procedures apply parental permission
  is required for special education.

51
What does it look like when teachers who lack
preparation in teaching ELLs apply generic
evidence-based practices?

• Note All examples are from real classrooms with
  English language learners, most at beginning
  levels of English proficiency.

52

• Stop asking me if were almost there were
  Nomads, for crying out loud.

53
Reflection

• How will we know when we are there (i.e., we have
  succeeded)?

54
RTI Models Represent a New Beginning

• RTI models represent a new beginning and a novel
  way of conceptualizing how we support student
  learning along a continuum rather than
  categorically.

55
Need for Ongoing Dialogue

• At the same time, if we do not engage in dialogue
  about critical issues, RTI will simply be like
  old wine in a new bottle, just another
  deficit-based approach to sorting children.
• It is our responsibility to make sure this does
  NOT happen.

56
For more information

• Janette Klingner
• University of Colorado at Boulder
• School of Education
• 249 UCB
• Boulder, CO 80309-0249
• E-mail Janette.Klingner_at_Colorado.EDU