Tesol Rti


Published on

This session present the implementation of a Response to Intervention Model in Urban Education. Teacher perceptions of implementation are presented.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Model implementation Teacher Perceptions of implementation Implications for practice
  • The growth of ELLs in schools + limitations around teachers’ preparation in teaching ELLs coupled with the prevalence of learning disabilities = Complicated student profiles for teachers, schools, and states Imisidentification and referral of ELL for special education Leos and Demilio--2005 reported that while special education training averaged 40 hours, 60% special education teachers who also worked with at least 3 ELL only received an average of 3 additional hours of training
  • Thus applyig this model to schools with this growing population of students…. We must think ….Beyond the one teacher… one classroom…to school wide systems…. I developed this description of RTI as a conceptual model for my research work in addressing the needs ELL in urban settings/
  • All grades 3 times a year except K- only winter & spring
  • Ad current year plus YA, FES, HA
  • After the first year- school rates decreased from 10- 5%
  • (MaRTInez, Graves and Heckman 2008, March Communique): “However, in the case of RTI successful collaboration can serve the immediate needs of both schools and universities while further advancing the common goal of widespread RTI implementation and a greater awareness of the importance of research based educational practice.” Revisit this idea.
  • Tesol Rti

    1. 1. Implementing a Response to Intervention Model with ELLS: An Urban Case Study Claudia Rinaldi, Ph.D. Orla Higgins Averill, CAGS Sarah Estabrook [email_address]
    2. 2. Presentation Goals <ul><li>To present specifics about the implementation of an RTI model that addresses student reading skills in urban schools with a large percentage of ELLs and a suburban school </li></ul><ul><li>To present school wide changes in oral reading fluency and comprehension as a result of the RTI model for schools in their first year and the school in 3 rd year of implementation </li></ul><ul><li>To present implications of RTI as school-wide reform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Special education referral rates and practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher perceptions of the model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To discuss the specific issues regarding meeting the needs of ELLs through the RTI process </li></ul>
    3. 3. A Growing Population <ul><li>ELLs increased by over 60% from 1994-95 to 2004-05 (National Clearing House for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>43% of teachers in the U.S. have at least one ELL in their classroom (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>72% of ELLs are Spanish Speakers </li></ul>
    4. 4. Special Education and ELLs <ul><li>Since the inception of IDEA (1975), the number of students referred for Learning Disabilities (LD) has more than doubled </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2% in 1976-77 to 5% in 2007-08 (The Condition of Education, 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Special education teachers receive an average of 40 hours of training in their program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>60% of those with at least 3 ELLs receive an average of only 3 additional hours of training on ESL strategies (Leos and Demilio, 2005) </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. RTI and English Language Learners <ul><li>Response to Intervention is the practice of providing high quality instruction in a tiered system with interventions matched to student need using progress monitoring to frequently make changes in instruction based on individual progress (Reschly, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>“ The potential for reducing the number of racially/ethnically diverse students in special education by applying the RTI model is important, because the disproportionate representation of racially/ethnically diverse students in special education is one of the most prominent, controversial issues facing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in education today” (Newell & Kratochwill, 2007) </li></ul>
    6. 6. Tier 1 – Primary Prevention Universal screening (CBM) of all students Progress monitoring of ELLs: oral language proficiency & academic language development Progress monitoring of high-risk students Collaborative Problem Solving- School & Grade level Tier 2 – Secondary Prevention 15-20 weeks of small group instruction & Progress Monitoring & Collaborative Problem Solving Team decision to Add, change and/or refer to Multidisciplinary Team Evaluation (MDT) for Special Education Tier 3 – TeRTIary Prevention 1:1 and PM using CBM MDT evaluation Eligibility and IEP Oral English proficiency Academic language proficiency Increasing needs-based intervention Response to Intervention Model for English Language Learners (Rinaldi & Samson, 2008) TIER 3 One-on-One Referral to Special Ed. TIER 2 Additional EIRP Pre-referral Intervention TIER 1 Evidenced-based instructional reading program (EIRP) Universal Screening
    7. 7. This Study <ul><li>This session describes a research project implementing a Response to Intervention (RTI) model to improve reading skills at urban & suburban elementary schools as a school-wide reform effort </li></ul><ul><li>Part of a larger study that includes data from various constituents involved in the reform effort (principals, teachers, & students) </li></ul><ul><li>Research questions : </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What were the reading outcomes of students in general in the 3-tiered RTI model? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What were the reading outcomes of ELL students in general in the 3-tiered RTI model? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In the first year of RTI implementation how many students were referral for special education assessment & how many were eligible for services? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Longitudinally look at the school in year 3 of implementation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 9. Study Implementation Overview <ul><li>Trained school personnel before school start on RTI and RTI framework </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All school personnel including individuals identified to be the universal screening & progress monitoring team </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conducted Universal Screening of all students </li></ul><ul><li>Tiered student using data sources & teacher judgment- Class-wide overview protocol (see Stuart & Rinaldi, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Monthly RTI meetings & completion of protocols for tier 2 & 3 students (see Stuart & Rinaldi, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Schedule repeated again at benchmarks (January & May) </li></ul>
    9. 10. Station Teaching using Flexible Grouping <ul><li>We address critical components of reading by having students move through stations/centers in the reading block </li></ul><ul><li>Stations/Centers are design to address: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate small group instruction using direct instruction, semi-independent, & independent instructional practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Using flexible grouping formats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobility across instruction and grouping to ensure direct instruction and peer models </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supported by multiple personnel, grade level planning time , and RTI progress monitoring problem solving protocol . </li></ul>
    10. 11. Progress Monitoring Practices <ul><li>1. Screening all students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify tier 1, 2, & 3 by grade level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2. Administer one minute timed measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Students in Tier 1 (3 times per year -Sep., Dec., & May) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students in Tier 2 (1 per month) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students in Tier 3 (1 per week) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3. Meet with RTI/PM Team weekly* and discuss all students in your class & grade </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor academic interventions & progress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Note movement in tier by progress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor social-behavioral-health services </li></ul></ul>
    11. 12. Assessments Kindergarten Letter-Naming Fluency (LNF), Initial Letter-Sound Fluency (ISF), phonemic segmentation fluency & Criterion-referenced comprehension test 1st Grade Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), & Criterion-referenced comprehension test 2nd Grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) & Criterion-referenced comprehension test 3rd Grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) & Criterion-referenced comprehension test 4th Grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) & Criterion-referenced comprehension test 5th Grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) & Criterion-referenced comprehension test
    12. 13. Benefits of RTI Meetings <ul><li>Enhanced teacher collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion of Tier 2 and Tier 3 students </li></ul><ul><li>Data informed planning </li></ul><ul><li>Shared responsibilities for teaching and learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ My students” become “Our students” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implicit professional development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross training (ELL, special education, general education) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific evidenced- based interventions explored & implemented </li></ul></ul>
    13. 14. Results, Discussion, & Implications School- wide Data Results Teacher Perception Results
    14. 15. School-Wide Reading Fluency All Schools – First Year Percentage
    15. 16. School 1- Reading Fluency 2007-2008 Urban Percentage
    16. 17. School 2 School-Wide Reading Fluency 2009-2010- Urban Percentage
    17. 18. School 3 School-Wide Reading Fluency 2009-2010- Urban (high poverty) Percentage
    18. 19. School 4 School-Wide Reading Fluency 2009-2010 (Suburban) Percentage
    19. 20. School 1- Urban Two Year trajectory
    20. 24. Impact of RTI on ELLs <ul><li>In depth grade level analysis also suggest: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In K2 there were no differences between Non-English language learners and English Language Learners (ELLs) in risk status according to letter naming fluency (LNF). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In 1st grade, ELLs significantly drop below when the stakes go up from LNF to ORF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>As non-ELLs progress from 1st grade to 5th grade their risk decreases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>As ELLs progress from 1st grade to 5th grade the gap widens- largely in comprehension (good decoders but no context due to language proficiency) </li></ul></ul>
    21. 25. After one year of RTI implementation how many students were referred for special education assessment & how many were identified? (School 1) <ul><li>School year 2006-2007 (prior to RTI implementation) School 1 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>32 students were referred for special education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>26 students were found eligible (60% eligible) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 more qualified but parent declined services (3%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>School year 2007-2008 (RTI -year 1) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>17 students were referred for special education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10 teacher referred, 9 parent referred </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>7 students eligible (41% eligible)/53% did not qualified </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>School year 2008-2009 (present RTI-year 2) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>8 students referred as of Feb. 15, 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3 parent referred, 3 teacher requested (1 PT & OT, EBD, 2ELLs) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 eligible (25% eligible), 1 504 medical </li></ul></ul></ul>
    22. 26. Teacher Perceptions of RTI
    23. 27. Teacher Perceptions Year 1- All schools <ul><li>General Themes in Adoption </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Assessment and Progress monitoring happening </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increased students achievement </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Need for more data beyond Oral Reading Fluency </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Intervention and Instruction is being addressed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Established a core reading program by grade </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indicates change is necessary but does not dictate what to change </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Measure effectiveness of instruction- RTI targets or individualizes </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. Impact on Teacher Practice is evident in classrooms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Needs for Professional development </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Referral practices now are considering language diversity </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    24. 28. Teacher Perceptions Year 1- all schools <ul><ul><li>4. Culture of Reform taking place </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Communication & Collaboration – problem-solving </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers value the new time for collaboration and problem solving at grade level </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5. Special Education Referral Process for ELLs is been critically addressed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>General concerns of the the referrals of ELL still present but more informed but decreased by 50% in school </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers still unable to report rates referring to special education </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perceive RTI as having an effect in the process even though they were not able to quantify the actual prevalence </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    25. 29. Longitudinal Third Year Teacher Perception Analysis of School 1 <ul><li>Reduced special education referral rate is clear </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No questioning the profiles of the latest referral in contrast to previous years looking for profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Improved Collaboration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Now we have a core curriculum and we use progress monitoring to improve the way we present the core- not just monitor students’ progress. Our core has improved dramatically. I also think the way that we plan the core lessons shows that we have the kids in mind.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Awareness of how to better instruct students who receive Tier 3 and or special education services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RTI has been instrumental in getting to analyze and address our core instruction so that all of us are on the same page”. </li></ul></ul>
    26. 30. Longitudinal Third Year Teacher Perception Analysis -School 1(cont.) <ul><li>4. Efficacy of Using Progress Monitoring to Guide Instruction is clear </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Participants were able to now monitor Tier 2 and Tier 3 students monthly for grade level instructional progress and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>they were able to strategically mobilize personnel resources to assist in instructional interventions and progress monitoring. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>5. Understanding the needs of ELLs is strategic now </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Participants felt that they made a shift in the manner in which they used data to inform instruction. “ (Progress Monitoring data) helps us characterize exactly what the student needs rather than guess at what the student needs.” </li></ul></ul></ul>
    27. 31. Longitudinal Third Year Teacher Perception Analysis -School 1(cont.) <ul><li>Most significant finding: </li></ul><ul><li>6. Big Shift in School Culture </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>also specifically describing a shift in their views of themselves as educational leaders </li></ul></ul></ul>
    28. 32. How Did RTI Contribute to the Success of Students? <ul><li>Teacher collaboration in planning, problem-solving, and communication- developing strong professional learning communities </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers were clear about the need for the core instruction and access to regular curriculum (students not leaving for pull out) </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers strategies around center-based instruction developed around the recommended areas in reading </li></ul><ul><li>Developed a common understanding of RTI in their school and what needs to drive instruction for their population </li></ul><ul><li>Developed abilities to integrate data for planning instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness of the unique needs of ELLs in their school </li></ul>
    29. 33. Discussion <ul><li>RTI model is effective for monitoring the progress of all students including ELLs in reading </li></ul><ul><li>RTI model ensures targeted preventive instruction for all learners is delivered </li></ul><ul><li>RTI models may need to address urban schools even more strategically based on projected percentages </li></ul><ul><li>Change and reform take time </li></ul><ul><li>Looking at year 1 data it is evident that ELLs have unique needs beyond fluency instruction and additional dosage of the core curriculum in small group instruction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Must evaluate the role of vocabulary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perhaps address academic language in content areas </li></ul></ul>
    30. 34. LIMITATIONS <ul><li>Qualitative design is subject to the limitations associated with a small sample size and lack of generalizability of findings. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 30% of the teachers represented in each school </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Although large volumes of data were gathered, this collection allows only a glimpse into participants’ perceptions of the efficacy of RTI reform movement in their school </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Student outcomes and student perceptions </li></ul></ul>
    31. 35. Implications for Practice and Working with ELLs <ul><li>Teacher perception are vital in understanding & planning for a school-wide reform effort </li></ul><ul><li>Educators achieved sustainable changed by creating a balance between administrator and faculty roles </li></ul><ul><li>When participants perceived ownership they will take the challenges associated with including proper training, planning, and supporting of ELLs </li></ul><ul><li>Helped administrators & teachers meet goals that met the needs of all students including ELLs </li></ul>
    32. 36. References <ul><li>Newell, M & Kratochwill, T.R. (2007). The Integration of Response to Intervention and Critical Race Theory - Disability Studies: A robust Approach to Reducing Racial Discrimination in Evaluation Decisions. </li></ul><ul><li>Reschly, D. (2005). Learning disability identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? The Journal of Learning Disabilities,38 (6), 310-315. </li></ul><ul><li>Rinaldi, C. & Samson, J. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral recommendations. Teaching Exceptional Children , 40 (5), 6-14. </li></ul>
    33. 37. References <ul><li>Stuart, S. K., Rinaldi, C ., & Higgins Averill, O. Educators’ three year perceptions of an RTI reform effort in an urban elementary school. Manuscript submitted for publication. </li></ul><ul><li>Rinaldi, C., Stuart, S.K., & Higgins Averill, O. Educators’ perceptions of an RTI reform effort in an urban elementary school: A qualitative analysis of year two. Manuscript submitted for publication. </li></ul><ul><li>Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C ., Proctor, P., & Cardarelli, A. (in press). Teachers’ perceptions of RTI reform in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. </li></ul><ul><li>Chapman, L., Greenfield, R., & Rinaldi, C. (2010). Drawing is a frame of mind: An evaluation of students’ perceptions about reading instruction within a response to intervention model. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49 (2), 113-128. </li></ul><ul><li>Rinaldi, C . & Stuart, S. K. (2009). Whole schooling and response to instruction. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 5( 1), 41-58. </li></ul><ul><li>Stuart, S.K., & Rinaldi, C . (2009). A collaborative planning framework for teachers implementing tiered instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41 (4), 52-57. </li></ul>