Bilingual Special Ed

As I prepare to conduct a summer institute on RTI, I wanted to share some very informative and practical articles and books that will help anyone interested in learning and implementing RTI. It includes resources for principals, administrators, teachers, and others interested. In addition it provides information on how to address the needs of bilingual learners in the process and the history of RTI from the feds.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W.N., Peaster, L.G. & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of Response to Intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (1), 86-92.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L. & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997-2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (5), 8-12.

Brown-Chidsey, R. (October, 2007). No more “waiting.” Educational Leadership: ASCP, 39-46.

Buffum, A. Mattos, M. & Weber, C. (2006). Pyramid Response to Intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn.

Dewitz, P., Jones, J. & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (2), 102-126.

Fletcher, J.M. & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Series, 3 (1), 30-37.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, S.L. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 93-99.

Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 (5), 14-20.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to Intervention: A framework for reading educators. International Reading Association, Newark: DE.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S. and Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A Practice Guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.

Moore, J. & Whitfield, V. (2009). Building schoolwide capacity for preventing reading failure. The Reading Teacher, 62 (7), 622-624.

Murawski, W.W. & Hughes, C.E. (2009). Response to Intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure, 53 (4), 267-277.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel:
Teaching children to read. An Evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications.nrp/smallbrook.htm (or www.nationalreading panel.org).

Rinaldi, C. & Samson, J. (2008). English language learners and Response to Intervention: Referral Considerations. Teaching Exceptional Children 40 (5), 6-14.

Teale, W.H. (2009). Students learning English and their literacy instruction in urban schools. The Reading Teacher, 62 (8), 699-703.

Response to Intervention: Can we really do this?
by:Claudia Rinaldi, Ph.D.,Boston College
Erica Herman, M.S. Ed. Boston Public Schools

The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found but made, and the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination.”

- John Schaar

Response to Intervention: Can we really do this?

Changes in American public education are continually affecting the lives of administrators and educators. The hope is that the changes address the real needs of an ever shifting population. New regulations from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 are making imperative changes to all administrators, principals and educators in the field. Response to Intervention (RTI) has been integrated into the newly amended IDEA as an option for the eligibility of students with learning disabilities. What does this mean for administrators and educators?
What is Response to Intervention (RTI)
This new instructional model came from new guidelines for school districts under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Ac t (IDEA) of 2004 that recommend using evidenced-based interventions—like those utilized in a response to intervention (RTI) model—as a diagnostic tool and as part of the identification and eligibility decision-making process for special education services and, in particular, for identification of learning disabilities (Mandlawitz, 2007). An RTI model integrates a multi-tier preventive instructional system that incorporates the systematic use of a data-driven decision process to enhance outcomes for all children (Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006). RTI is typically delivered in a three-tier school wide system with tier one consisting of general education classroom instruction, tier two consisting of general education classroom instruction in addition to small-group preventative tutoring (such as general classroom instruction as well as small group work with repeated readings), and tier three consisting of the elements from tiers one and two in addition to special education services (such as classroom instruction, small group work with repeated readings, and one-on-one instruction with a special education teacher) (see Figure 1). The model entails continuous progress monitoring and using the data to inform instructional decisions. The results of this model can strengthen both teaching and learning because the instruction is constantly tailored to meet the needs of each student at every tier and increase student achievement, while reducing the inappropriate number of students referred for special education.
As part of the model, all children in the school participate in universal screening assessments three times per year using curriculum-based measurements (CBM). CBM refers to assessment processes that determine students’ instructional needs within a curriculum by directly assessing specific curriculum skills (Rinaldi & Samson, 2008). CBM can be used at any time to monitor progress in the curriculum and its take a minimal time to administer (i.e. 3-5 minutes per student). Based on the universal screening, a student’s risk level is identified as Tier 1 (low risk/no risk), Tier 2 (moderate risk) and Tier 3 (high risk). At Tier 1, students are assessed during the 3 times identified in the school-wide model (Fall, Winter, and Spring). If the students are at Tier 2 or moderate risk, they are monitored monthly, while if students are at Tier 3 or high risk they are monitored weekly for progress. Based on most models the estimated number of students in each tier is as follows: 80% of the school population in Tier 1, 10-15% in Tier 2, and 5-10 percent will be in Tier 3. These numbers maybe different if the school is urban, has an unusual number of English language learners (ELLs), or high numbers of students with special education needs. Based on the data collected, teachers’ problem-solve instructional solutions that address the unique academic needs of the student, and decide whether they should continue or change instructional delivery or strategies using the progress monitoring data collected from the monthly or weekly CBMs.
Beyond assessment, the use of evidenced-based or scientifically based instructional solutions is recommended. This stipulates that schools evaluate their curriculum resources and personnel training as well as plan that can take different leadership roles based on staff’s individual strengths. For example, a reading specialist can be part of a reading instructional task force, while the computer education staff can integrate database management systems in place to track and report data on progress monitoring.
What must administrators and teachers organize to effectively implement a RTI model that meets district, state and nationals goals?
Administrators and educators must work in partnership to create a common understanding in 3 main areas before adopting this model.
RTI Knowledge. You must ensure that administrators and faculty, both regular and special educators, have a common understanding of the RTI model including how it will be implemented in the school and how RTI will address the district, state and national goals. Building a collaborative partnership among all participants will impact the connections with the everyday culture of the school and the students’ needs. All should have achievable and feasible goals that go beyond a one year initiative but one that prepares for true school change. Thus, prioritizing major changes and potential outcomes while allowing the current experience to inform future planning should a goal in itself.
Collaboration and Communication. You must continue to develop ongoing processes by which you develop a Professional Learning Community (DuFour, 2004) that establishes guidelines for a variety of levels and types of communication among all stakeholders including regular education teachers, special education staff, administrators, and supporting researchers. A Professional Learning Community is defined as a faculty approach on learning rather than teaching by working collaboratively, and holding yourself accountable for results (DuFour, 2004). Such approaches may include principal weekly updates, classroom walk-throughs, teacher led professional development initiatives, grade-level common planning time around addressing the needs of children in the various tiers, individualized training as needed, and school-university partnerships that can support professional development opportunities aligned to the RTI model. Thus, all efforts should also ensure shared decision-making, participation and responsibility in addressing the educational outcomes all students (Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003).
Sustainability and Capacity Building. You must develop structures and conditions that facilitate collaboration and logistical allocation of resources. For example a school implementing a RTI model provides individual teacher planning time plus additional grade-level RTI data- informed instructional planning time where students in Tier 2 and 3 are constantly being reviewed to ensure prevention. Another structure is the internal ability to report grade-level and school-wide data highlighting successes and challenges. These structures must have long term planning and sustained leadership. They must also be seen as practical and useful while recognizing teacher professionalism (Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003). In addition, sustainability of the model should also include support for the multi-tiered service delivery in the form of additional personnel with relevant training and or evidenced-based curriculum resources as stipulated in the RTI model identified by the school. Another vital area of sustainability is around the school-university partnerships. This type of partnership can provide support on ensuring a high fidelity of implementation of the model within the existing research, school structures and resources. It can also provide the schools with pre-service personnel receiving training at the pre-service level on RTI that can help support the school during implementation.
What can principals, other administrators, and teachers expect as a result of a RTI Model in their schools?
Principal leadership in implementing the scope of RTI is vital and necessary to see change and school reform. You can expect a variety of changes
1. Increase academic outcomes for students
2. Data-informed instruction
3. Problem solving ability of teachers
4. Collaboration among all professionals in the school
5. Reduction in the inappropriate referrals to special education
6. Increase level of teacher engagement in professional development
7. Evidence of a Professional Learning Community in action

Specifically at the individual student level, the RTI model will guarantee exposure to the evidenced-based regular education curriculum, and depending on tier level strategic and evidenced-based preventive curriculum. For example, at a Tier 2 risk level, students received the regular curriculum plus an additional “dose” delivered in a small group setting. For students in a Tier 3 risk level, a third exposure delivered by the special education teacher would be additional to the regular curriculum of Tier 1 and small group instruction of Tier 2. This is an important difference from the typical model where students with academic difficulties or learning disabilities can potentially be taken out or miss out on the general education classroom instruction thus creating inequalities in content and exposure to the curriculum.
At the teacher level, evidenced-based instruction within the RTI model will also guarantee that through data you see rate of individual student growth and the impact of Tier 2 and 3 intensity of instruction. The level of teacher engagement in the model entails quick and feasible administration of curriculum-based measurement tools within the regular classroom environment. When this aspect of RTI is in place you can expect teachers to move from whole class instruction to differentiated instruction, thus resulting in a preventive model rather than the more common “wait to fail” model for students. Further, the data from progress monitoring will allow teachers to inform their instructional decisions and to address the individual needs of each student with grade-level peers who are involved and invested in addressing the needs of all students in your grade and school. For example, a stronger focus on differentiated instruction can result on more grade level collaboration around planning, understanding and using data, brainstorming possible interventions and sharing of expertise. You can expect that this type of collaboration will address the aspects of the curriculum that can be measured through CBM and support the efforts of a professional learning community.
Lastly, you can expect the number of students referred for special education to decrease in general because of the prevention aspect of RTI and because the progress monitoring data demonstrates progress trajectory and rate of learning. This allows teachers to project gains based on the current instruction. Similarly, for students referred to the special education process, you will also have teachers that become active participants during special education eligibility and IEP meetings. Since teacher are now part of the progress monitoring effort using CBMs, they can report on the rate of learning based on tiered instruction and be involved in the development and monitoring of the IEP goals and objectives, be it at grade level or at instructional level or both. You can expect your teachers to have a more comprehensive conversation about children who are unable to learn despite cultural differences, educational opportunity, poverty and other factors. Finally, the teachers will also be able to confirm that a potential discrepancy found in the formal assessment process supports the findings they have obtained from the instructional programming and CBM probes administered over the course of the year.
In conclusion, the RTI model has the capacity to deliver instruction in a multi-tiered school wide system with Tier 1 consisting of general education classroom instruction, Tier 2 consisting of general education classroom instruction in addition to small-group preventative tutoring, and Tier 3 consisting of the elements from tiers one and two in addition to special education and/ or other support such as those for newly arrived ELLs. Three aspects of school change must be present to effectively implement a RTI model in schools. They include knowledge of a RTI model and how it will be applied to the particular needs of their school. Enhanced collaboration and communication structures such as those in Professional Learning Communities (Dufour, 2003), and lastly providing sustainability and capacity building in the form of personnel and allocation of resources that meets the demands of the teachers for providing evidenced-based instruction. Providing a high quality evidenced-based preventive education is fundamental and a right of all children.
Figure 1

References
Burns, M.K. & VanderHeyden, A.M. (2006). Using Response to Intervention to assess learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 3-5.
Denton, C.A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201-211.
Dufour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Mandlawitz, M (2007) What every teacher should know about IDEA laws and regulations. Pearson: Boston.
Rinaldi, C. & Samson, J. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral recommendations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6-14.

Dear Readers,
I am attaching the latest panel presentation for teacher educators and schools around RTI.

As you know I have been implementing an RTI model for two years and the impact on student achievement has been amazing. I wanted to begin posting about major steps we have taken in these last two years and the million dollar question of how do you being an RTI model in a school.

I will be posting information at various aspects of implementation: school structure, academic structure, and communication and collaboration, data informed instructional problem solving, data management and etc.

Today– CORE Literacy instruction How to:

As a schools prepares to implement an RTI model, they must address what is core instruction in each academic area. Why? All teacher needs to be in the same place so that they can ensure their instructional planning address state and district standards, literacy development, and differentiated instruction. So here are a first steps towards doing that:

It is wonderful to hear that the whole school is proceeding on the RTI professional development. It is also great to hear about the conversation beginning around Tier 1. What I would suggest is the following:
teachers at each particular grade level meet and make a list of what they feel constitutes core literacy instruction during the reading block.
Exchange lists and prioritize for the grade level they teach
Come to agreement on how their list meets the literacy requirements in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary and those of the district.
Identify what would constitute a typical week to week schedule of times when each of these areas of literacy will be taught/delivered
Have the team come to agreement that all will do this typical schedule every week. For example:

For Grade 1 at the Gardner- Core instruction constitutes:
Guided reading 3 X per week
Phonemic awareness and phonics/decoding through Fundations Wilson 4 X per week
Comprehension strategies through the Making Meaning curriculum-2X per week
Vocabulary instruction 3X per week.

6. Finally, have the teachers slot out the time it will take them to complete the instruction they proposed
7. Identify the “free” time available to plan for additional “doses” or interventions that can fit within the regular reading block after the core is completed.
8. Have the teachers do a one week trial and discuss any potential changes to the schedule and verify existing “free slots”
9. Have everyone keep a good record of what they decided for the beginning of the school year and revisit then.

10. You can now plan small group and 1-1 instruction for students at Tier 2 & 3.

I would love some feedback … it has worked real well for this schools and some new ones initiating the process….

I have been looking at the Brown University Alliance Toolkit for information on the effectiveness and impact of two-way programs. Two-way programs are programs where half of the children are dominant in English and the other half Spanish dominant (or whatever language focus– in Boston we have several Spanish, Cantonese, and Portuguese two-way programs) and instruction happens in both languages. If you are considering choosing a Two-Way bilingual program for your child you need to read this wonderful resource:

Here is their website description
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/twi/

“The Two-Way Immersion Toolkit, developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) and The Education Alliance, is a resource for teachers, parents, and administrators involved with two-way immersion (TWI) programs, particularly those at the elementary school level.

The Toolkit is designed to meet the growing demand from teachers, administrators, and parents for guidance related to the effective implementation of TWI programs. It is composed of three segments that address program design and planning, classroom instruction, and parental involvement, respectively.”

Please pass this wonderful resource on….

As some of you may know, I have been implementing a RTI model in an urban setting for two years. In a recent analysis of data we were able to take a closer look at the referral rates on the year prior to RTI implementation and the last two years. The numbers are staggering dropping.

Pre-RTI year- 10% of the school population was referred as “Initial Referrals” to special education.
Year 1 RTI implementation- 5% of the school population represented “Initial Referrals” that year of the project.
Year 2 RTI implementation- 3% of the school population represented “Initial Referrals” that year of the project.

We are closing in on the end of the year benchmark assessment in oral reading fluency after year 2 implementation. Keep a close eye for updates soon.

Claudia

So here we are, I have not written in a while but today after reading some interviews I was so excited to share.

I have been conducting a Response To Intervention (RTI) project for the last 2 years and the results have been impressive, I must say. At the end of the 1st year we have accounted for helping an additional 12% of students( K-5th grade) meet benchmark on oral reading fluency at their grade level. We have also studied the correlation between ORF and comprehension, and it is large (r=.78). We interviewed teachers last year to track the progress of the implementation from their perspective as a major stakeholder and learned so much. In a gist, they described themselves as “optimistically frustrated!”. There was a sense of using data to inform and drive instruction but time for processing and change was evident.
This year we continue our work and the students outcomes continue to increase. Special education referrals are down and teacher practices and data-informed decision making is evident every step of the way. Special education teachers and ELL specialists report less time on testing, evaluation, report writing, and meeting and double the amount of teaching! What an incredible outcome– Special Ed teachers teaching longer!!! I will continue writing but for now I wanted to let you thinking about this statement from a teacher asked about how RTI is impacted their practice:

How have the three tiers of intervention impacted your practice ?

I’ve definitely had to be a more thoughtful about planning and what activity each student is going to, rather than sending everyone to every literacy center. I have some students that don’t get to go to another center, because they need to practice with something else more – like letter naming or fluency.(K teacher)

How do you know “when” to refer students?
“Um…I try different interventions first (Tier 2 then Tier 3). And I compare their progress to that of their peers and if the students seems to be significantly behind, like 2 grade levels, that’s a red flag and a reason to problem solve with my grade-level team members. If over time they aren’t making any progress with the type of intensity of the intervention, that again says another red flag, then I think about how they may possibly need referral. Thinking about how their thinking and really working with them in small group and one-on-one to see where they are at it of the utmost importance before referring”. After all they are in K and come from a home where a different language is spoken! (K teacher)

For ELLs “I think if teachers are unaware of the challenges that ELLs face and some of their developmental trajectories learning a second language, like them not speaking for a few weeks because they need to absorb it all, it may make think you that they need SpEd, but if you take the time to get to know them as a learner and realize how services through RTI can be deliver thus providing extra English instructionthen you know you don’t refer but give them the tools to learn English, BUT You Definitely have to know the characteristics of ELLs.

I will be back!

Here are some latest articles that are musts for anyone planning the implementation of RTI models in reading with all types of populations.

Chard, D.J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B.A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S. and Make’enui, E.J. (2008). Predicting Reading Success in a Multilevel School-wide Reading Model: A Retrospective Analysis Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 41 (2), 174-188.

Baker, S.K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J.R., Kame’enui, E.J., Beck, C. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high- poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37 (1), 18-37.

Fien, H., Baker, S.K., Smolkowski, K., Smith, J.L.M., Kame’enui, E.J., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in kindergarten through second grade for English language learners and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37 (3), 391-408.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention with severely impaired readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 126–142.

You want evidence here it is!!

Claudia Rinaldi received the an educational research fund award for the 2008-2009 school year. The study proposes to evaluate a transdisciplinary Response to Intervention (RTI) Model in a full-service school and its impact on reading achievement of ELL students with and without disabilities.Keep posted for a more detailed description.

We just finished the RTI training for the school staff and its interesting that all the teachers were asking the “right” questions. Some of the new innovations of the program this year is to focus on better logistics, planning, and implementation. For example, the school has assigned a learning specialist for each grade who is a Special Education provider as well as endorsed in sheltered English instructional strategies. In addition, the principal also organized for each grade to have a students teacher and paraprofessional at each grade level. The principal has the gift of organization and logistics in running the school to support the RTI model. The main goal is to be able to provide small group instruction and 1 to 1 when needed within the tired system.
One update from last year not posted in my August post, is that this school was in the “Needs Improvements” list the last couple of years because they didn’t meet adequate yearly progress (AYP), but last year after the implementation of RTI the school met AYP for English language arts. Great news and very promising results to follow up this year. My main role this year is to develop a problem solving protocol in collaboration with a colleague trained in “Instructional Consultation” to implement the RTI model using both a problem solving model and fixed protocol.