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.

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.
crinaldi@edc.org
www.urbancollabora1ve.org
www.edc.org
personal
blog:www.bilingualspecialed.com
1

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. 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://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2013/ELL-­‐disabili/es-­‐report.pdf)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/
english_lang/pals/index.asp
• Home
page
&
videos:
hUp://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/

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/4success.org/instruc/onTools)

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://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Prac/ceGuide.aspx?
sid=6

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://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/
• Florida
Center
for
Reading
Research
hUp://www.fcrr.org/
• US.
DOE
Prac/ces
Guides/
What
Works
• Margarita
Calderon
hUp://margaritacalderon.org/

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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/4success.org
– Na/onal
Center
on
Intensive
Interven/ons
at
hUp://www.intensiveinterven/on.org/).
– Na/onal
Center
for
Learning
Disabili/es’
RTI
Ac/on
Network
and
Schools
transforma/on
project
at
www.r/network.org
or
www.ncld.org
• Rinaldi-­‐
Tier
2
Ask
the
experts
Tier
2
for
ELLs
-­‐-­‐hUp://r/network.org/connect/593-­‐
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. 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://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
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.