Considerations

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

• What does federal law say about Response to
  Intervention and Early Intervening Services?

3
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.

4
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).

5
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.

6
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).

7
Overview of RTI as Commonly Conceptualized
8
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
9
RTI Models

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

10
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.

11
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.

12
Problem-Solving Model

• The problem-solving 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 team to be flexible.
• Professional expertise is valued.

13
Problem-Solving Model (NASDSE, 2005)
14
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.

15

• 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).

16
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
17
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

18
Reflection
Reflection and Discussion

• At what stage is your school and/or district in
  implementing RTI?
• What are the greatest challenges you are facing?
• What is needed for RTI to be effective,
  appropriate and equitable for all students,
  including CLD students?

19
Assumptions Underlying RTI that May Be
Problematic with ELLs
20
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.
21
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.
22

• 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.
• School personnel should make every effort to
  select evidence-based interventions that have
  been found to be effective with students similar
  to those with whom they will be used.

23
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 through research
to be effective with mainstream English-speaking
students are appropriate for serving ELLs.
24

• 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.

25
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.
26

• There are many reasons a child may not respond to
  instruction.
• The method is not an effective one 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.
• It may be more appropriate to provide ELLs with
  extra support at the 2nd tier of an RTI model
  while they are acquiring English rather than
  placing them in special ed.

27
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 percentages 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.
  Yet no sooner had the year begun than the
  educators at Marble Mountain began to experience
  challenges

28
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.
29

• When many students are not progressing, the first
  step should be to look for ways to make
  instruction more appropriate
• 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 may not be using it with fidelity.
• Perhaps the teacher is struggling with classroom
  management.
• Perhaps the teacher has not been trained in how
  to differentiate instruction for ELLs.

30
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.
31

• Teachers concerns, and their mindset, have
  changed very littlethey are still frustrated
  that students are not learning more quickly.
• 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 so that they can receive
  more intensive support.
• 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 has had training
  and experience in working with ELLs and in
  distinguishing between language acquisition and a
  learning disability.

32
Challenge 3 The school has limited resources.
School personnel are struggling to figure out
ways to make RTI feasible. They lack full sets of
books they are being asked to pay for and
implement progress monitoring in addition to the
other high stakes testing they have already been
administering they have one resource teacher (a
reading specialist) providing Tier 2 support, but
she does not have time to help teachers with
their instruction and also provide intensive
instruction for all students who need it.
33

• Schools are part of larger systems. Unless
  funding structures are changed to provide more
  support for struggling schools, they are going to
  find it very hard to implement RTI.
• Marble Mountains principal has taken several
  steps
• She has allocated 15 of her special education
  funding to help pay for the Reading Specialists
  salary and is looking to see if Title 1 funds can
  be used to help pay for additional Tier 2
  intensive instruction, as well as more materials.
  
• She has heard that in some districts a traveling
  team helps with progress-monitoring and is asking
  her district to do this. Her classroom teachers
  are implementing the DIBELS but are frustrated
  that it takes time away from instruction and
  tells them little they dont already know.
• She is lobbying for additional professional
  development. She has started an after-school
  study group on teaching reading to ELLs, but
  knows her teachers need more.

34
RTI Models in Diverse Schools

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

35
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
36
An RTI Framework for Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse 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 the background
  variables of CLD students that impact academic
  achievement (i.e., first and second language
  proficiency, educational history including
  bilingual models, immigration pattern,
  socioeconomic status, and culture) information
  through progress monitoring and informal and
  formal assessments to guide instructional and
  intervention planning

37

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

38
1st Tier

• The foundation of the first tier should be
  culturally and linguistically responsive, quality
  instruction with on-going progress monitoring
  (using authentic assessments) within the general
  education classroom.
• 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.

39
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?

40

• 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?
• Have the childs parent(s) been asked for their
  input?

41
2nd Tier

• When students have not made adequate progress
  when taught using appropriate methods at the 1st
  tier, 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 through progress monitoring and other
  means.

42
The Collaborative Team

• The collaborative (i.e., 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.

43
3rd Tier

• This tier is special education.
• The hallmark of instruction at this level is that
  it is tailored to the individual needs of the
  student it is even more intensive than at
  previous tiers.
• Parental consent is needed to move a child to
  Tier 3.

44
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.

45
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.

46
Reflection and Discussion

• How will we know when we have succeeded?
• Facilitators and supports
• What is helping you address the challenges you
  are facing?
• What systems of support do you already have in
  place that can help?
• What advice do you have for others who are
  starting to implement RTI?

47

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

48
Resources

• National Association of School Psychologists
  (2006). The role of the school psychologist in
  the RTI process. Available at www.nasponline.org
• National Association of State Directors of
  Special Education (NASDSE) (2005). Response to
  intervention Policy considerations and
  implementation. Available from NASDSE
  Publications at www.nasdse.org
• National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
  (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and
  learning disabilities. Available at
  www.ldonline.org/njcld
• National Staff Development Council. Available at
  www.nsdc.org

49
Related Readings

• Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Baca, L.,
  Hoover, J. (Eds.) (in revision). English Language
  Learners who struggle with reading Language
  acquisition or learning disabilities? Thousand
  Oaks, CA Corwin.
• Klingner, J. K., Bianco, M. (2006). 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.
• Klingner, J. K., Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural
  considerations with response to intervention
  models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108-117.
• Klingner, J. K., Sorrells, A., Barrera, M.
  (2007). Three-tiered models with culturally and
  linguistically diverse students. In D. Haager, J.
  Klingner, S. Vaughn (Eds.), Validated reading
  practices for three tiers of intervention.
  Baltimore, MD Brookes.
• Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hoover, J. (in
  preparation). How to implement response to
  intervention models. Boston, MA Allyn Bacon.

50
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