Implementing a

Response to Intervention Model

with ELLS: An Urban Case

Study Claudia Rinaldi, Ph.D.

Orla Higgins Averill, CAGS

Sarah Estabrookrinaldic@bc.edu

Presentation Goals 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

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 3rd year of implementation

To present implications of RTI as school-wide reform Special education referral rates and practices Teacher perceptions of the model

To discuss the specific issues regarding meeting the needs of ELLs through the RTI process

A Growing Population

ELLs increased by over 60% from 1994-95 to 2004-05 (National Clearing House for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction, 2005)

43% of teachers in the U.S. have at least one ELL in their classroom (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002)

72% of ELLs are Spanish Speakers

Special Education and ELLs

Since the inception of IDEA (1975), the number of students referred for Learning Disabilities (LD) has more than doubled2% in 1976-77 to 5% in 2007-08 (The

Condition of Education, 2008)

Special education teachers receive an average of 40 hours of training in their program 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)

RTI and English Language Learners

Response to Interventionis 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)

“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)

Response to Intervention Model for English Language Learners(Rinaldi & Samson, 2008)

Tier 1 – Primary PreventionUniversal screening (CBM) of all studentsProgress monitoring of ELLs: oral language proficiency & academic language developmentProgress monitoring of high-risk studentsCollaborative Problem Solving- School & Grade level

Tier 2 – Secondary Prevention15-20 weeks of small group instruction & Progress Monitoring &Collaborative Problem SolvingTeam decision to Add, change and/or refer to Multidisciplinary Team Evaluation (MDT) for Special Education

Tier 3 – TeRTIary Prevention1:1 and PM using CBM MDT evaluationEligibility and IEPOral English proficiencyAcademic language proficiency

Increasing needs-based intervention

TIER 3One-on-One

Referral toSpecial Ed.

TIER 2Additional EIRP

Pre-referralIntervention

TIER 1Evidenced-based

instructional reading program(EIRP)

UniversalScreening

This Study 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

Part of a larger study that includes data from various constituents involved in the reform effort (principals, teachers, & students)

Research questions:What were the reading outcomes of students in general in

the 3-tiered RTI model?What were the reading outcomes of ELL students in

general in the 3-tiered RTI model?In the first year of RTI implementation how many students

were referral for special education assessment & how many were eligible for services?

Longitudinally look at the school in year 3 of implementation

Study Implementation Overview• Trained school personnel before school start on RTI

and RTI framework– All school personnel including individuals identified to be

the universal screening & progress monitoring team

• Conducted Universal Screening of all students

• Tiered student using data sources & teacher judgment- Class-wide overview protocol (see Stuart & Rinaldi, 2009)

• Monthly RTI meetings & completion of protocols for tier 2 & 3 students (see Stuart & Rinaldi, 2009)

• Schedule repeated again at benchmarks (January & May)

Station Teaching using Flexible Grouping

We address critical components of reading by having students move through stations/centers in the reading block

Stations/Centers are design to address: Phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary and

comprehension Facilitate small group instruction using direct instruction,

semi-independent, & independent instructional practices Using flexible grouping formats Mobility across instruction and grouping to ensure direct

instruction and peer models

Supported by multiple personnel, grade level planning time, and RTI progress monitoring problem solving protocol.

Progress Monitoring Practices1. Screening all students

Identify tier 1, 2, & 3 by grade level

2. Administer one minute timed measures Students in Tier 1 (3 times per year -Sep., Dec., & May) Students in Tier 2 (1 per month) Students in Tier 3 (1 per week)

3. Meet with RTI/PM Team weekly* and discuss all students in your class & grade Monitor academic interventions & progress Note movement in tier by progress Monitor social-behavioral-health services

AssessmentsKindergarten

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

Benefits of RTI Meetings

• Enhanced teacher collaboration

• Discussion of Tier 2 and Tier 3 students

• Data informed planning

• Shared responsibilities for teaching and learning– “My students” become “Our students”

• Implicit professional development– Cross training (ELL, special education, general

education)– Specific evidenced- based interventions explored &

implemented

Results, Discussion, & Implications

School- wide Data Results

Teacher Perception Results

School-Wide Reading FluencyAll Schools – First Year

Per

cent

age

School 1- Reading Fluency2007-2008 Urban

Per

cent

age

School 2 School-Wide Reading Fluency2009-2010- Urban

Per

cent

age

School 3 School-Wide Reading Fluency2009-2010- Urban (high poverty)

Per

cent

age

School 4 School-Wide Reading Fluency2009-2010 (Suburban)

Per

cent

age

School 1- UrbanTwo Year trajectory

Impact of RTI on ELLs

• In depth grade level analysis also suggest:1. 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).

2. In 1st grade, ELLs significantly drop below when the stakes go up from LNF to ORF

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- largely in comprehension (good decoders but no context due to language proficiency)

After one year of RTI implementation how many students were referred for special education assessment & how many were

identified? (School 1)

• School year 2006-2007 (prior to RTI implementation) School 1– 32 students were referred for special education

• 26 students were found eligible (60% eligible)• 1 more qualified but parent declined services (3%)

• School year 2007-2008 (RTI -year 1)– 17 students were referred for special education

• 10 teacher referred, 9 parent referred• 7 students eligible (41% eligible)/53% did not qualified

• School year 2008-2009 (present RTI-year 2)– 8 students referred as of Feb. 15, 2009

• 3 parent referred, 3 teacher requested (1 PT & OT, EBD, 2ELLs)• 2 eligible (25% eligible), 1 504 medical

Teacher Perceptions of RTI

Teacher Perceptions Year 1- All schools

• General Themes in Adoption– 1. Assessment and Progress monitoring happening

– Increased students achievement

– Need for more data beyond Oral Reading Fluency

– 2. Intervention and Instruction is being addressed– Established a core reading program by grade

– Indicates change is necessary but does not dictate what to change

– Measure effectiveness of instruction- RTI targets or individualizes

– 3. Impact on Teacher Practice is evident in classrooms– Needs for Professional development

– Referral practices now are considering language diversity

Teacher Perceptions Year 1- all schools

– 4. Culture of Reform taking place– Communication & Collaboration – problem-solving

– Teachers value the new time for collaboration and problem solving at grade level

– 5. Special Education Referral Process for ELLs is been critically addressed

– General concerns of the the referrals of ELL still present but more informed but decreased by 50% in school

– Teachers still unable to report rates referring to special education

– Perceive RTI as having an effect in the process even though they were not able to quantify the actual prevalence

Longitudinal Third Year Teacher Perception Analysis of School 1

1. Reduced special education referral rate is clear– No questioning the profiles of the latest referral in contrast to

previous years looking for profiles

2. Improved Collaboration– “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.”

3. Awareness of how to better instruct students who receive Tier 3 and or special education services – RTI has been instrumental in getting to analyze and address our

core instruction so that all of us are on the same page”.

Longitudinal Third Year Teacher Perception Analysis -School 1(cont.)

4. Efficacy of Using Progress Monitoring to Guide Instruction is clear

• Participants were able to now monitor Tier 2 and Tier 3 students monthly for grade level instructional progress and

• they were able to strategically mobilize personnel resources to assist in instructional interventions and progress monitoring.

5. Understanding the needs of ELLs is strategic now

• 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.”

Longitudinal Third Year Teacher Perception Analysis -School 1(cont.)

Most significant finding:

6. Big Shift in School Culture

• also specifically describing a shift in their views of themselves as educational leaders

How Did RTI Contribute to the Success of Students?

Teacher collaboration in planning, problem-solving, and communication- developing strong professional learning communities

Teachers were clear about the need for the core instruction and access to regular curriculum (students not leaving for pull out)

Teachers strategies around center-based instruction developed around the recommended areas in reading

Developed a common understanding of RTI in their school and what needs to drive instruction for their population

Developed abilities to integrate data for planning instruction

Awareness of the unique needs of ELLs in their school

Discussion• RTI model is effective for monitoring the progress of

all students including ELLs in reading

• RTI model ensures targeted preventive instruction for all learners is delivered

• RTI models may need to address urban schools even more strategically based on projected percentages

• Change and reform take time

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 Must evaluate the role of vocabulary Perhaps address academic language in content areas

LIMITATIONS

• Qualitative design is subject to the limitations associated with a small sample size and lack of generalizability of findings. – Only 30% of the teachers represented in each school

• 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 – Student outcomes and student perceptions

Implications for Practice and Working with ELLs

• Teacher perception are vital in understanding & planning for a school-wide reform effort

• Educators achieved sustainable changed by creating a balance between administrator and faculty roles

• When participants perceived ownership they will take the challenges associated with including proper training, planning, and supporting of ELLs

• Helped administrators & teachers meet goals that met the needs of all students including ELLs

References

• 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.

• Reschly, D. (2005). Learning disability identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? The Journal of Learning Disabilities,38(6), 310-315.

• Rinaldi, C. & Samson, J. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral recommendations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6-14.

References

• Stuart, S. K., Rinaldi, C., & Higgins Averill, O. Educators’ three year perceptions of an RTIreform effort in an urban elementary school. Manuscript submitted for publication.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Rinaldi, C. & Stuart, S. K. (2009). Whole schooling and response to instruction. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 5(1), 41-58.

• Stuart, S.K., & Rinaldi, C. (2009). A collaborative planning framework for teachersimplementing tiered instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(4), 52-57.