Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Response to Intervention and English Learners- Rinaldi


Published on

This presentation was delivered at the National Tittle III State Directors Meeting 2013 in Arlington, VA. This was part two. My Colleague Julie Esparza Brown delivered the theoretical foundation of RTI and the common myth associate with its implementation.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Response to Intervention and English Learners- Rinaldi

  1. 1. 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.   personal     1  
  2. 2. 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  
  3. 3. 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     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   (www.  hUps://­‐disabili/es-­‐report.pdf)  
  4. 4. 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  
  5. 5. MTSS  implementa1on  stage  (n=269)   100%   90%   80%   1   6   26   70%   60%   17   50%   40%   20   30%   20%   10%   30   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   0%   5  
  6. 6. Percentage  affirming  that  their  district’s  MTSS  (RTI)   framework  meets  the  needs  of  ELLs  with  disabili1es   (n=173)   80   70   60   50   40   30   20   10   0   68   51   35   Year  1  (planning  or  ini/al   implementa/on)   Years  2-­‐3  (refining   implementa/on)   Years  4-­‐5+   (ins/tu/onalized   implementa/on)   6  
  7. 7. 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  
  8. 8. 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  
  9. 9. 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  
  10. 10. 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  
  11. 11. 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  
  12. 12. 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  
  13. 13. 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  
  14. 14. 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  
  15. 15. 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.  
  16. 16. 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  
  17. 17. 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:// english_lang/pals/index.asp   •  Home  page  &  videos:  hUp://
  18. 18. Sample  Interven1ons  and  Instruc1onal   Recommenda1ons   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/
  19. 19. Sample  Interven1ons  and  Instruc1onal   Recommenda1ons   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:// sid=6  
  20. 20. Sample  Interven1ons  and  Instruc1onal   Recommenda1ons   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://   •  Florida  Center  for  Reading  Research  hUp://   •  US.  DOE  Prac/ces  Guides/  What  Works   •  Margarita  Calderon  hUp://  
  21. 21. 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  
  22. 22. 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    
  23. 23. 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  
  24. 24. 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)  
  25. 25. 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)  
  26. 26. 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  
  27. 27. Data Wall- Grades K-3 Dominant Languages Spanish & English Reading Comprehension % of students Meeting Tier1 grade level Benchmarks Or below For Tier 2 & 3
  28. 28. 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-­‐  
  29. 29. 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/     –  Na/onal  Center  on  Intensive  Interven/ons  at   hUp://www.intensiveinterven/   –  Na/onal  Center  for  Learning  Disabili/es’  RTI  Ac/on  Network  and   Schools  transforma/on  project  at  www.r/  or   •  Rinaldi-­‐  Tier  2  Ask  the  experts  Tier  2  for  ELLs  -­‐-­‐hUp://r/­‐ 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  
  30. 30. 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:// 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.