Cultural Considerations with Response to Intervention (RTI) Models and Literacy Instruction

1
Cultural Considerations withResponse to
Intervention (RTI) Models and Literacy
Instruction

• Janette Klingner
• Michael Orosco
• University of Colorado at Boulder
• Margarita Bianco
• Colorado State University

2
From

• Klingner, J. K., Edwards, P. (in press).
  Cultural considerations with response-to-intervent
  ion models. Reading Research Quarterly.
• Klingner, J.K., Bianco, M. (in press). What is
  special about special education for culturally
  and linguistically diverse students with
  disabilities? In B. Cook  B. Schirmer (Eds.),
  What is special about special education? Austin,
  TX PRO-ED.

3
Overview

• Overview of popular RTI Model
• What do we mean by research based?
• Revised Culturally Responsive RTI Model
• Culturally Responsive Literacy Instruction
• Closing Thoughts

4
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.

5
Response to Intervention Models

• Some critical issues we will be discussing today
  
• What should this scientific, research-based
  intervention look like?
• We need to find out what works with whom, by
  whom, and in what contexts.
• How can we facilitate culturally responsive
  practices at each tier? What can you do in your
  role to make sure this happens?

6
Response to Intervention A Three-tiered Model

• Special
• Education

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

Research-based instruction in general education
classroom
7
Tier 1
1st Tier

• Research-based instruction at the first tier is
  for all students and consists of explicit
  instruction in
• phonological awareness,
• the alphabetic principle (letter-sound
  correspondence),
• fluency with connected texts,
• vocabulary development, and
• comprehension.

8
Tier 2
2nd Tier

• The second tier is only for those students who do
  not reach expected benchmarks using a
  curriculum-based progress-monitoring assessment
  instrument such as the DIBELSthe Dynamic
  Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills.
• Students receive additional intensive support in
  small groups or individually.
• This support is provided within general
  education.
• Students may receive this additional support in
  their classrooms or in a different setting.

9
Tier 3
3rd Tier

• Students who continue to struggle are then
  provided with a third tier or level of assistance
  that is more intensive. It is this third tier
  many would consider to be special education.

10
Critical Issues

• The RTI model presumes that if a child does not
  make adequate progress with intensive
  research-based instruction, he or she must have
  an internal deficit of some kind.
• How do we ensure that the child has in fact
  received culturally responsive, appropriate,
  quality instruction?
• As with earlier identification criteria, this
  model must be based on students having received
  an adequate opportunity to learn.

11
What Do We Mean by Research-based?

• Fundamental to the notion of the RTI model is
  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.
12
What Do We Mean by Research-based?
1. Group Work

• What do we mean by research-based?
• How do we account for language and culture when
  designing interventions, conducting research, and
  generalizing findings?
• What kinds of questions do we need to ask as
  researchers and / or consumers of research?

13
Research-based Interventions What Counts as
Research?

• What does it mean when we say a practice is
  research-based?
• Much can and should be learned through
  qualitative and mixed methods approaches that are
  better able to answer questions about complex
  phenomena and help us
• understand essential contextual variables that
  contribute to the effectiveness of an approach,
  or
• increase our awareness of implementation
  challenges, or provide information about the
  circumstances under which and with whom a
  practice is most likely to be successful.

14
Research-based Interventions What Counts as
Research?

• We promote a broader view of both what
  constitutes empirical research and what sorts of
  empirical evidence are relevant to complex issues
  that integrally involve culture, social
  interaction, institutions, and cognition (Gee,
  2001, p. 126). This is particularly important as
  we move to RTI models.

15
Research-based Interventions What Counts as
Research?

• For example, much can be learned by observing in
  schools and classrooms where culturally and
  linguistically diverse students excel as readers.

16
Research-based Interventions What Counts as
Research?

• Example In their observations of exemplary
  first-grade classrooms, Pressley and colleagues
  found that
• Teachers ensured students were involved in tasks
  matched to their competency level.
• Teachers accelerated demands as students
  competencies improved.
• Teachers also encouraged students to regulate and
  monitor their own learning.

17
Example In first grade classrooms that included
English language learners..

• THE MOST EFFECTIVE TEACHERS
• had sophisticated knowledge of reading
  instruction as well as second language
  instruction.
• were able to draw on the prior knowledge of
  struggling readers and make connections with what
  they already knew.

Graves, Gersten, and Haager (2004)
18
Example In first grade classrooms that included
English language learners..

• emphasized explicit instruction in word
  identification, phonological awareness, and
  vocabulary instruction.
• provided structured opportunities to practice
  English.
• provided supportive learning environments in
  which students were highly engaged.

Graves, Gersten, and Haager (2004)
19
Research-based Interventions What Works With
Whom, By Whom, and in What Contexts

• It is essential to find out what works with whom,
  by whom, and in what contexts.
• These issues of population validity and
  ecological validity are essential if research
  results are to be generalized - yet seem to be
  ignored.

20
With Whom?

• When deciding if a practice is appropriate for
  implementation as part of an RTI model, it should
  have been validated with students like those with
  whom it will be applied.
• Experiments should include students who are the
  intended targets of the instruction being
  evaluated (Pressley, 2003, p. 68).
• Although the National Reading Panel report did
  not address issues relevant to second language
  learning (2000, p. 3), the reports conclusions
  are commonly cited as support for Reading First
  initiatives for all students.

21
With Whom?

• Research reports should include information
  about
• the language proficiency, ethnicity, life
  experiences (e.g., socio-economic, specific
  family background, immigration status)
• Data should be disaggregated to show how
  interventions respectively might differentially
  affect students from diverse backgrounds.

22
With Whom?

• When research studies do not include culturally
  and linguistically diverse student populations,
  or disaggregate data based on important
  variables, what does this say regarding the
  researchers assumptions about what matters, who
  counts, and what works?
• English language learners are often omitted from
  participant samples because of their limited
  English proficiency.
• Yet language dominance and proficiency are
  important research variables and can affect
  treatment outcomes.
• Leaving students out of studies limits the
  external validity and applicability of such
  studies, especially for teachers who have
  culturally and linguistically diverse students in
  their classes.

23
By Whom?

• On-going analyses of general education classrooms
  should be an essential component of RTI models.
• School personnel should first consider the
  possibility that students are not receiving
  adequate instruction before it is assumed they
  are not responding because they have deficits of
  some kind (Harry Klingner, in press).

24
By Whom?

• In their investigation of the
• special education referral
• process in high need schools,
• Harry and Klingner (in press)
• found that the classroom
• context was rarely considered
• when making referral or
• eligibility decisions. Rather,
• school personnel seemed quick
• to attribute a childs struggles to
• internal deficits or the home
• environment.

25
As the field considers how RTI models should be
implemented

• Not enough attention has focused on the central
  role of classroom teachers
• We must observe in classrooms and note the
• Quality of instruction
• The relationship between a teacher and students
• How students are supported
• How the teacher promotes interest and motivation

26
In What Contexts?

• It is essential to examine school contexts when
  implementing RTI models.
• A student's school failure is quite fluid,
  meaning that a student can be considered at-risk
  at one time and not at another, in one class but
  not in another, and in one school but not in
  another (Richardson Colfer, 1990).
• Are there culturally diverse children in some
  schools who respond favorably to an intervention
  and comparable culturally diverse children in
  another school who do not respond as well?

27
In What Contexts?

• Variations in program implementation and
  effectiveness across schools and classrooms are
  common (see the First Grade Studies for a classic
  example, Bond Dykstra, 1967).
• What is occurring when this happens?
• Is it the program, the teachers implementation,
  or the school context?
• What is it about the system that facilitates or
  impedes learning?
• Schools are dependent on larger societal
  influences that should not be ignored.

28
In What Contexts?

• To conclude that failure resides within students
  when they do not progress with a certain
  intervention, and then move them onto the second
  or third tier in an RTI model or decide they
  belong in special education without considering
  other factors is problematic.

29
Issues of Fidelity and Generalizability

• When results do not transfer, the assumption by
  some is that those implementing the model did not
  use it correctly. Or the gap between research and
  practice is lamented.
• When a teacher does not implement an
  instructional practice with fidelity, what does
  that really mean?
• To what extent is the teachers reluctance,
  resistance, or inability to implement a practice
  in a certain way due to differences between
  his/her students and the students for whom the
  practice was originally developed, or perhaps to
  variations in the school context?
• When teachers struggle with implementation, this
  is an indication we need to look more closely at
  what is occurring.

30
Differences exist between laboratory or
controlled studies and the world of practice,
especially in high-need urban schools.

• When considering the extent to which a practice
  was implemented with fidelity, it is important to
  examine the constraints under which those who
  implemented the model were operating.
• For example, the creators of Success for All
  offer the caveat that their program is effective
  only when fully implemented. Yet implementation
  challenges can be frequent.

31
Looking More Closely at Non-Responders

• When examining RTI research, we would like to
  understand more about the non-responders, and
  what happened in their classrooms.
• Did these students not respond because they may
  have disabilities, or for other reasons?
• What are the variables to consider?

32
Are we truly doing all we can to improve outcomes
for culturally and linguistically diverse
students who do not respond?

• Current policies emphasize finding what works.
  But, again, we ask, What works with whom?
• If Intervention A is found to be better than
  Intervention B (or no intervention), we must not
  assume that Intervention A is the best we can do
  for all students. What happens when we
  disaggregate the data by ethnicity, language
  proficiency, or SES?
• WHAT IF ..?
• 60 of the sample (the majority of the
  middle-class white students) did better with
  Intervention A, because, after all, school
  instruction tends to be compatible with white,
  middle class culture? And what if 40 of the
  sample (many of the culturally and linguistically
  diverse students) did better with B?

33
Are we truly doing all we can to improve outcomes
for culturally and linguistically diverse
students who do not respond?

• WHAT IF ..?..
• It turns out that Intervention A focused on
  explicit instruction in phonological awareness
  and the alphabetic principle, and that
  Intervention B did precisely the same, but with
  the addition of components considered culturally
  responsive?
• What would we then conclude? Is A really what
  works best for all students?

34
Are we truly doing all we can to improve outcomes
for culturally and linguistically diverse
students who do not respond?

• This view does not mean that we should abandon
  evidence-based interventions and give up trying
  to figure out what works.
• But there is limited evidence they will work well
  with everyone, or lead to maximum growth for a
  particular subset of students.
• We suggest that additional research is needed in
  which mixed-methods approaches are used to
  investigate culturally responsive practices
  singularly and in combination with other
  approaches.

35
Are we truly doing all we can to improve outcomes
for culturally and linguistically diverse
students who do not respond?

• In the end, the best instructional practice is
  based on sound pedagogical principles implemented
  thoughtfully and sensitively by a knowledgeable
  and reflective teacher who adapts instruction to
  students needs and even may act in ways
  inconsistent with some research findings.

36
Revised Response to Intervention Model

• Special
• Education

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

Referral to a Child Study Team or Teacher
Assistance Team
Culturally responsive instruction in general
education classroom
37
Tier 1
1st Tier

• The foundation of the first tier should be
  culturally responsive, quality instruction with
  on-going progress monitoring within the general
  education classroom.
• We see this first tier as including two essential
  components
• (a) research-based interventions, and
• (b) instruction by teachers who have developed
  culturally responsive attributes

38
Tier 1
1st Tier
2. Group Work

• What is meant by culturally responsive policy
  practices?
• State level?
• District level?
• School level?
• Classroom level?
• What should the first tier look like for
  culturally and linguistically diverse students?
• For English language learners?
• For students living in high poverty areas?
• Specifically, what can you do in your role to
  make sure Tier 1 includes culturally responsive
  practices?

39
Research-based Interventions in a Culturally
Responsive RTI Model

• In their teacher education programs as well as
  through ongoing professional development,
  teachers should become familiar with
  instructional strategies linked to academic
  growth for their population of students as well
  as assessment procedures that can be used to
  monitor progress, particularly in language and
  literacy.
• Teachers need to know if their interventions are
  effective and how to adjust instruction for
  students who do not seem to be responding.

40
(No Transcript)
41
Culturally Responsive Literacy Instruction

• What does it mean to provide culturally
  responsive literacy instruction?
• All practice is culturally responsivebut to
  which culture(s) is it responsive?
• Culture is involved in all learning.
• Culture is not a static set of characteristics
  located within individuals, but is fluid and
  complex.

42
Culturally responsive literacy instruction should

• Include explicit instruction in phonological
  awareness, the alphabetic code, language and
  vocabulary development, and reading for meaning
• Emphasize cultural relevance and build on
  students prior knowledge, interests, motivation,
  and home language

• Include frequent opportunities to practice
  reading with a variety of rich materials in
  meaningful contexts and take into account the
  socio-cultural contexts within which students
  learn.

43
Conceptualizing culturally responsive literacy
instruction

• But, it goes beyond these basic components. In
  conceptualizing culturally responsive literacy
  instruction, we draw upon Wileys (1996)
  framework for working with diverse students and
  families
• accommodation,
• incorporation, and
• adaptation.

44
Accommodation requires teachers and others to
have a better understanding of the communicative
styles and literacy practices among their
students and to account for these in their
instruction.

• Literacy learning begins in the home, not the
  school instruction should build on the
  foundation for literacy learning established in
  the home (Au, 1993, p. 35).
• Several qualitative studies have shown that, even
  in conditions of substantial poverty, homes can
  be rich in print and family members engage in
  literacy activities of many kinds on a daily
  basis.

45
Incorporation requires studying community
practices that have not been valued previously
and incorporating them into the curriculum.

• It means surrendering a privileged position and
  acknowledging that much can be learned from
  others.
• We must not assume that we can only teach the
  families how to do school, but that we can learn
  valuable lessons by coming to know the families,
  and by taking the time to establish the social
  relationships necessary to create personal links
  between households and classrooms (Moll, 1999,
  p. xiii).
• Teachers and parents need to understand the way
  each defines, values, and uses literacy as part
  of cultural practices--such mutual understanding
  offers the potential for schooling to be adjusted
  to meet the needs of families (Cairney, 1997, p.
  70).

46
Adaptation involves the expectation that children
and adults must acculturate or learn the norms of
those who control the schools, institutions, and
workplace (Wiley, 1996).

• Culturally and linguistically diverse parents,
  parents living in poverty, and immigrant parents
  want to give their children linguistic, social,
  and cultural capital to deal in the marketplace
  of schools, but are unsure how to go about doing
  this.
• When schools fail to provide parents with
  factual, empowering information and strategies
  for supporting their childs learning, parents
  are even more likely to feel ambivalence as
  educators of their own children (Clark, 1988,
  p. 95).

47
Framework for moving closer to leveling the
educational playing field

• We believe these three courses of action can be
  used as a backdrop for helping us think about
  culturally responsive literacy instruction.
• It is not enough to implement isolated
  evidence-based interventions. Instructional
  methods do not work or fail as decontextualized
  generic practices, but only in relation to the
  socio-cultural contexts in which they are
  implemented.
• These perspectives form the foundation for how we
  are thinking about culturally responsive RTI
  models.

48
The Culturally Responsive Literacy Teacher in the
RTI Model Developing the Affective Domain

• Culturally Responsive Literacy teachers value the
  presence and participation of their culturally
  linguistically diverse students and realize the
  need for these students to make connections
  between their own learning styles and the
  literacy goals and objectives that the literacy
  curriculum asks of them.
• These teachers are able to conduct
  self-assessments, provide a range of culturally
  sensitive instructional methods and materials,
  develop proactive culturally responsive
  classrooms, foster collaborative learning
  environments, develop and utilize culturally
  aware assessments, and collaborate with other
  professionals and families.

49
Culturally Responsive Literacy Teachers Conduct
Self Assessments

• Many times teachers are afraid to confront their
  limited understanding of cultures other then
  their own and the possibility that this lack of
  understanding will negatively affect their
  students abilities to become successful readers.
• Therefore, teachers must critically assess their
  relationships with their students and their
  understanding of students cultures (Patton,
  1998)

50
Culturally Responsive Instructional Methods and
Materials

• Teachers need to use instructional methods and
  materials that are evidence based and that have
  been developed to work with their given school
  setting, the population, and their literacy
  needs.
• Examples of this are
• Explicit Reading Instruction
• Interdisciplinary Literacy Units
• Literacy Scaffolding

51
Proactive Culturally Responsive Classrooms

• The Culturally Responsive Literacy Teacher
  develops proactive Reading Environment by
• Establishing a Classroom Atmosphere that respects
  each student and their cultures by going beyond
  wall decorations (pseudo-literacy) by developing
  a cross cultural literacy atmosphere.
• Examples of this are
• Libraries that have a variety and wide range of
  culturally diverse literature.

52
Fostering Collaborative Learning Environments

• Cooperative learning
• Cooperative Learning groups brings together
  students with diverse backgrounds so that they
  may approach a variety of supportive and
  collaborative literacy activities.
• Cooperative learning allows students to use their
  speaking, reading, and writing skills so that
  they may achieve literacy goals and objectives,
  which not only furthers their reading development
  but also their self esteem.

53
Culturally Aware Assessments

• The culturally responsive literacy teacher
  employs ongoing and systematic assessment of
  their students reading abilities.
• The research continues to show that ongoing
  assessment provides a strong basis for
  instructional decision-making and that it can
  offer the teacher insights into what to teach and
  how to teach.

54
Collaboration

• The culturally responsive literacy teacher
• collaborates and communicates with culturally
  diverse families Families are the key to a
  strong literacy program and should be
  continuously informed of their students progress
  and encourage to participate in classroom
  activities (Moll et al., 2005).
• collaborates and communicates with other
  professionals who may help to improve their
  students literacy needs.

55
Attributes of Culturally Responsive Teachers

• Researchers have conducted in depth qualitative
  studies on the dispositions and practices of
  teachers whose culturally and linguistically
  diverse students excel.
• Pre-service and in-service teachers should learn
  what it means to be culturally responsive and
  should participate in experiences designed to
  prepare them to teach in diverse settings
• These dispositions and practices should be
  incorporated into further research on culturally
  responsive teaching.

56
Attributes of Culturally Responsive Teachers

• What do we know about teacher expectations and
  perceptions of culturally and linguistically
  diverse students or students with disabilities?
• Do teachers view diverse students from a deficit
  based perspective? How can we change that?
• How do teachers expectations influence students?
• Years of research demonstrate how teachers
  differentially interact with students based on
  lowered expectations of students abilities.

57
Tier 2
2nd Tier

• When culturally and linguistically diverse
  students have not made adequate progress when
  taught using appropriate, culturally responsive
  methods implemented with fidelity, a second tier
  of intervention is warranted.
• This tier is characterized as providing a level
  of intensive support that supplements the core
  curriculum and is based on student needs as
  identified by ongoing progress monitoring.
• For now, we do not know a great deal about what
  this intensive support should look like for
  culturally and linguistically diverse students,
  or the extent to which it should differ from the
  second tier of support provided to all students
  identified as at risk.

58
Tier 2
2nd Tier
3. Group Work

• What should Tier 2 look like for culturally and
  linguistically diverse students?
• What is the role of
• classroom teacher?
• special education teacher?
• ESL specialist?
• Parent?
• 3. Should Tier 2 interventions be individualized?
  Same for ALL learners at the Tier 2 level?
• 4. Who should be providing Tier 2 interventions?
• 5. What funds should be used to provide these
  services?

59
Tier 3
3rd Tier

• This phase starts with a referral to a Teacher
  Assistance Team or a Child Study Team.
• This step can overlap with the second tier (i.e.,
  the provision of intensive support does not need
  to stop for a referral to begin).

60
Tier 3
3rd Tier
4. Group Work

• What aspects of the traditional referral process
  should be kept?
• What needs to be changed?
• Who should be on the TAT team? Their roles?
• 3. What further assessments should be done at
  this level?
• 4. What is the role of the school psychologist?

61
Tier 3
3rd Tier

• The make-up of the team should be diverse and
  include multiple members with expertise in
  culturally responsive pedagogy.
• There should be a team member who can offer
  guidance with culturally sensitive on-going
  assessment.
• A bilingual or English as a second language (ESL)
  specialist should also be involved when the
  student is an English language learner.

62
Tier 3
3rd Tier

• Teams should have a wide range of meaningful
  intervention strategies available to them.
• Using a problem-solving approach, they should
  determine how to alter the support a student has
  been receiving and develop specific instructional
  objectives based on student performance data.
• An important role for the team should be
  observing the student in her classroom as well as
  in other settings.

63
What should the RTI process look like for
culturally and linguistically diverse students?
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
64
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
65
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
66
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
67
Adapted from Garcia and Ortiz, 1988
68
Tier 4
4th Tier

• In the model we propose, this tier would be
  special education.
• The hallmark of instruction at this level is that
  it is tailored to the individual needs of the
  student, and is even more intensive than at
  previous tiers.
• Unlike the second or third tiers, this assistance
  is not limited to a set number of weeks.

69
RTI models represent a new beginning

• We are encouraged by the potential of RTI models
  to improve educational opportunities for
  culturally and linguistically diverse students
  and to reduce their disproportionate
  representation in special education.
• RTI models represent a new beginning and a novel
  way of conceptualizing how we support student
  learning.

70
Need for Ongoing Dialogue about Critical Issues

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

71
CONCLUSION

• We believe that ultimately the most effective
  interventions for culturally and linguistically
  diverse students will come from bringing together
  diverse perspectives, and from careful
  examination of notions about disability and
  cultural diversity within their full
  socio-cultural and historical contexts.

72
Closing thoughts

• What would an effective RTI model for culturally
  and linguistically diverse students look like?
• How will we know when we have succeeded?

73
RESOURCES

• National Association for Bilingual Education
  Local Implementation by Local Administrators
  (ILIAD) Project, 2002
• National Alliance of Black School Educators
  ILIAD Project, 2002.
• National Center for Culturally Responsive
  Educational Systems (NCCRESt), 2005.
• .

74
For more information

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

• Margarita Bianco
• Colorado State University
• School of Education, 103
• Fort Collins, CO
• Email MBianco_at_cahs.colostate.edu

75
Thank you