1. OSEP Project Directors’ Conference 2016 Washington, DC
Implementing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for English Learners – Part I
Lucinda Soltero-González Letti Romero Grimaldo Sylvia Linan Thompson
OSEP Project Directors’ Conference 2016
Washington, DC

2. Overview Model Demonstration Projects
Goals
Project Description
Findings
Lessons learned
Policy and Instructional Recommendations
Q & A

3. Model Demonstration Projects
In September 2011, OSEP funded the 5th cohort of Model Demonstration Projects: Three projects focused on the development and implementation of multi-tiered systems of support models (MTSS) in grades K-3 grades.
Projects’ main goals:
Improve EL students’ literacy and language outcomes
Ensure sustainability of the MTSS model
OSEP Project Officer: Dr. Grace Zamora Durán
Intro: 5 min.
LS: Should we include ”Reduce inappropriate referrals and placements in special education” as a goal?

4. Projects Cohort 5 Project Grantees include:
Project ELITE, University of Texas at Austin: Gregory Roberts and Sharon Vaughn; Project Director: Letti Romero Grimaldo
Project ESTRE2LLA, University of Texas at Austin: Pis: Alba Ortiz and Sylvia Linan-Thompson
Project REME, University of Colorado Boulder: Pis: John Hoover and Lucinda Soltero-González
Cohort 5 Project Grantees include:
Project ELITE, University of Texas at Austin. Principal Investigators: Gregory Roberts and Sharon Vaughn; Project Director: Letti Romero Grimaldo.
Project ESTRE2LLA, University of Texas at Austin. Principal Investigators: Alba Ortiz and Sylvia Linan-Thompson
Project REME, University of Colorado Boulder: Principal Investigators: John Hoover, and Lucinda Soltero-González

5. EL Model Demonstration Projects
Projects in urban, rural, and near-urban areas of Colorado and Texas
Three language programs: Early-exit bilingual, one- and two-way dual language, and English as a second language
English learner (EL) population range between 31% and 86%
Length of implementation
EL Model Demonstration Projects
This image shows four aspects that contextualize the three EL Model Demonstration Projects: The settings for these projects include urban, rural, and near-urban areas of Colorado and Texas. Projects are being implemented in three different language programs: early exit bilingual, one and two way dual language, and English as a second language programs. The English learner population ranges between 31 percent and 86 percent.

6. Practice Briefs
Model Demonstration Coordination Center website:
Briefing on Effective Practices for English learners, U.S. Department of Education, September 21, 2015:
This presentation focuses on policy recommendations for the implementation of a culturally and linguistically responsive multi-tiered instructional framework to meet the needs of ELs and of ELs with or at risk of being identified with an LD. For more information about each of these projects’ tiered instructional models, you can access a series of Practice Briefs devoted to effective practices for English learners.
Refer the audience to these 2 links
Pictures of 5 briefs are shown. These briefs provide more information about the projects' multi tiered instructional models. The briefs can be accessed at the Model Demonstration Coordination Center Website.
A link for the Model Demonstration Coordination Center website is provided:
A second link to access a Briefing on Effective Practices for English learners presented at the U.S. Department of Education on September 21, 2015 is provided:
g=82d9933c cb eb97fd8#!

7. Multitiered Systems of Support (MTSS): Essential Components
Differentiated, high-quality, research-based language and literacy teaching in both the primary language and English
Data-Based Decision-Making
Screening, progress monitoring, language proficiency data, regular data review
Supplemental Instruction (Tiers 2 and 3)
Differentiated, high-quality, research-based language and literacy instruction with varying levels of intensity
Tier 1: Differentiated, high-quality, research-based language and literacy teaching in both the primary language and English
Data-Based Decision-Making: Screening, progress monitoring, language proficiency data, regular data review
Supplemental Instruction (Tiers 2 and 3): Differentiated, high-quality, research-based language and literacy instruction with varying levels of intensity

8. Modifying MTSS to meet the needs of ELs
High-quality, evidence-based core literacy instruction
Students’ language proficiency, cultural background, and educational histories informing literacy instruction
Systematic, targeted supplemental instruction
Broader lens for assessment and data interpretation practices
Modifying MTSS to meet the language and literacy needs of Els
Image listing four aspects of an MTSS model that should be modified in order to meet the needs of ELs:
High quality, evidence-based core literacy instruction
Students’ language proficiency, cultural background, and educational histories informing literacy insstruction
Systematic, targeted supplemental instruction
Broader lens for assessment and data interpretation practices

9. Project REME: RTI Effectiveness Model for ELs John J
Project REME: RTI Effectiveness Model for ELs John J. Hoover Lucinda Soltero-González

10. Project REME
Five-Component MTSS Framework 5.
Ecological
Decision Making 4.
Multiple Levels of Assessment and Data Sources 3.
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice 1.
Multi-Level Instruction 2.
Research-Based Core Literacy Instruction
Highlight unique characteristics of the REME model: research-based core literacy instruction, CLR practice for instruction, assessment, and decision making
Image showing a Five Component MTSS Framework: 1 Multi-level Instruction, 2 Research-based Core LIteracy Instruction, 3 Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice, 4 Multiple Levels of Assessment and Data Sources, and 5 Ecological Decision Making

11. Project REME: Job-embedded PD and Coaching
Formal professional development and Modeling
Teacher selected action item
Observation and feedback
Teacher self-reflection
Our job embedded PD framework included formal professional development, modeling & lesson demonstrations in classrooms coupled with coaching. Teacher selected action items during PD and then received coaching and feedback.
Coaching was a collaboration between the REME team and mentor or master teachers to provide feedback to teachers; teachers received coaching 2-3 x semester during the last 2 years of the project.
Overtime, our coaching became more targeted. Specific methods/strategies previously presented to the participants through PD were the focus of subsequent coaching
Image showing the Project REME job embedded PD and coaching cycle from Formal professional development and Modeling to Teacher selected action items to Observation and feedback to Teacher self-reflection to Observation and feedback which finally leads back to Formal professional development.

12. Project REME PD Topics
Five RTI model components
Ten instructional qualities to increase ownership of MTSS by all stakeholders
*Core literacy instructional practices to meet the needs of ELs
Culturally and linguistically responsive assessment, data interpretation, and decision-making
Sustainability of the REME RTI Model
PD on the following themes was provided to the participating schools on an ongoing basis throughout the duration of the project.
Project REME
Project REME’s Topics of Professional Development include the following:
Five RTI model components
Ten instructional qualities to increase ownership of MTSS by all stakeholders
Core literacy instructional practices to meet the needs of ELs
Culturally and linguistically responsive assessment, data interpretation, and decision-making
Sustainability of the REME RTI Model

13. Project REME: Sustainability Plan
Instructions: Each school leadership team documented responses to the 3 following items for each MTSS model component:
Policy
Resources
Training
Briefly summarize the school policy for sustaining the REME model components for ELs
Describe how the use of the REME model tools will be sustained in the school
For the sustainability plan in the REME project, we created a form for each school leadership team to document their responses to the 3 following items for each of the 5 components of our MTSS model:
Policy:
Resources
Training
Describe procedures for preparing new teachers/specialists in the REME model
components and associated resources
For the sustainability plan in the REME project, we created a form for each school leadership team to document their responses to the 3 following items for each of the 5 components of our MTSS model:
1. Policy: Briefly summarize the school policy for sustaining the REME
model component for English learners
2. Resources: Describe how the use of the REME Model tools
will be sustained in the school
3. Training: Describe procedures for preparing new teachers/specialists in
the REME model component and associated resources

14. Project REME: Teacher Outcomes
Improvements seen in general class core literacy instruction through inclusion of effective instructional practices
ELD instruction (e.g., visuals, sentence stems, dialogue)
Increased use of methods for developing ELs’ reading fluency and comprehension, writing
Relevance of curriculum and instruction is an area of need for all participating schools (e.g., culturally relevant materials, school-home connections, incorporating students’ funds of knowledge into the curriculum)
Language acquisition is more frequently discussed by teachers in team meetings data interpretation
Some improvements seen in decision-making process as culture and language acquisition factors are addressed by teachers in team meetings
• Initial findings show that overall, the number of research-based bilingual and ESL literacy instructional practices
used by classroom teachers in grades K-3 increased over time.
For example, areas where we’ve seen most growth is in the use of strategies for ELD such as visuals, sentence stems, guided dialogue, as well as methods for developing reading fluency, comprehension and writing.
•Within each school, there are teachers with higher levels of implementation than others, but on average, these are the main strengths and areas of need that we identified at the participating schools.
•The relevance of curriculum and instruction is an area where the participating teachers needed more training and coaching so the curriculum & instructional practices is relevant to students’ backgrounds, experiences and interests.
•Another important finding is that language acquisition is more frequently discussed in school team meetings when interpreting student data; as a result, we have seen some improvements in the decision making process as culture and language acquisition factors are considered in these team meetings.
•An important takeaway from these findings is that our PD IMPROVED LITERACY PRACTICES in the general education classroom and attention to language and cultural aspects is now an important aspect of data interpretation and instructional decisions.

15. Project REME: 2011-2015 Student Reading Outcomes
Here are some initial findings from the 2 schools that participated in the REME project since its inception.
• These graphs show the percent of students, by cohort, reaching the DRA2 grade level benchmark. Cohort I included students in grades K-3, Cohort II students in grades 1-3 and Cohort II students in grades 2-3.
• At AE school (dark blue bars), results show a positive and upward trend of student reading scores from baseline through the final project year. It’s important to note that at this school, the levels of fidelity of implementation were medium to high.
•For JC, we also see an increase in the percent of students reaching the DRA2 benchmark in Cohort I, however, in Cohorts II and III we see a decrease in those percentages, specially from 2nd to 3rd grade. Levels of fidelity of implementation at this school were low.
Image with 3 bar graphs showing findings from the 2 schools that participated in the REME project since its inception. • These graphs show the percent of students, by cohort, reaching the DRA2 grade level benchmark. Cohort I included students in grades K-3, Cohort II students in grades 1-3 and Cohort III students in grades 2-3. • At AE school (dark blue bars), results show a positive and upward trend of student reading scores from baseline through the final project year. It’s important to note that at this school, the levels of fidelity of implementation were medium to high. •For JC, school we also see an increased in the percent of students reaching the DRA2 benchmark in Cohort I, however, in Cohorts II and III there is a pronounced decrease in those percentages, specially from 2nd to 3rd grade. Levels of fidelity of implementation at this school were low.

16. Project REME: Referrals to Special Education and Sustainability
Schools have adopted the use of a new district-wide culturally and linguistically responsive referral tool, thereby generating more informed special education referrals
Approximate 30% decrease in inappropriate referrals at the district level
Sustainability Plan
School teams have self-generated a blueprint for maintaining the MTSS model over time
REME team is developing an individualized checklist of items based on school responses and will conduct follow-up sustainability observations during Fall 2016
School teams have self-generated a blueprint for maintaining the REME model over time, providing specifics about policies, materials, allocation of resources, and training and support for new teachers to ensure sustainability of the model.

17. Project ELITE: English Learner Institute for Teaching and Excellence Letti Romero Grimaldo Greg Roberts Sharon Vaughn

18. Technical Advisory Group
Assist with model development and refinement
Representatives from district leadership, school leadership, interventionists, classroom teachers and Project ELITE researchers
2 hour monthly meetings (or, as needed) to review data and outline “next steps” in model development
In collaboration with a central Texas rural school district, Project ELITE focused on developing, refining and implementing a mutitiered model that support Els within the context of culturally responsive pedagogy. During our first year, a technical advisory group was formed consisting of district leaders, school leaders, classroom teachers, RTI providers and Project ELITE researchers. Technical advisory group meetings were held regularly to develop, refine and support pilot implementation of the key components of the model.
In collaboration with a central Texas rural school district, Project ELITE focused on developing, refining and implementing a mutitiered model that support Els within the context of culturally responsive pedagogy. During our first year, a technical advisory group was formed consisting of district leaders, school leaders, classroom teachers, RTI providers and Project ELITE researchers. Technical advisory group meetings were held regularly to develop, refine and support pilot implementation of the key components of the model.

19. Project ELITE: Five Key Model Components
The five key components of our model for Els are (1) high-quality culturally and linguistically responsive core language and literacy instruction, (2) high-quality culturally and linguistically responsive supplemental instruction (Tier II and Tier III) that is valid for Els with or at risk for literacy-related learning disabilities, (3) linguistically aligned assessment practices, (4) systematic use of assessment data in the design and delivery of instruction and in educational decision-making, and (5) educator capacity building for sustained quality of instruction and services for Els at risk for and with reading difficulties.
The five key components of our model for Els are (1) high-quality culturally and linguistically responsive core language and literacy instruction, (2) high- quality culturally and linguistically responsive supplemental instruction (Tier II and Tier III) that is valid for Els with or at risk for literacy-related learning disabilities, (3) linguistically aligned assessment practices, (4) systematic use of assessment data in the design and delivery of instruction and in educational decision-making, and (5) educator capacity building for sustained quality of instruction and services for Els at risk for and with reading difficulties.

20. Project ELITE’s MTSS Model
Flowchart downward showing Project ELITE’s MTSS model, with Tier I or Core Instruction for all students at the top, then the administration of screening measures and structured data meetings for Tiers I, II and III. From there, students at benchmark receive supplemental enrichment by tutors and classroom teachers. Alternatively, students below benchmark may receive teacher-provided Tier II intervention, or Interventionist-provided Tier II intervention, or Tier II Intervention. For these 3 types of interventions there is ongoing progress monitoring after which it is determined if students meet the exit criteria. If students do meet the exit criteria they return to Tier I only instruction or are exited into a less intense intervention. If students do not meet the exit criteria they remain in current intervention, are moved to a more intense intervention, or are considered for special education referral.
Flowchart downward showing Project ELITE’s MTSS model, with Tier I or Core Instruction for all students at the top, then the administration of screening measures and structured data meetings for Tiers I, II and III. From there, students at benchmark receive supplemental enrichment by tutors and classroom teachers. Alternatively, students below benchmark may receive teacher-provided Tier II intervention, or Interventionist-provided Tier II intervention, or Tier II Intervention. For these 3 types of interventions there is ongoing progress monitoring after which it is determined if students meet the exit criteria. If students do meet the exit criteria they return to Tier I only instruction or are exited into a less intense intervention. If students do not meet the exit criteria they remain in current intervention, are moved to a more intense intervention, or are considered for special education referral.

21. Project ELITE: Enhanced Core Instruction through a Read Aloud Routine
In a collaborative effort among researchers and campus administrators to address the large number of students in need of supplemental reading intervention (Tier II and Tier III), Project ELITE worked to identify areas in which to strengthen core instruction through principles of culturally responsive pedagogy and instructional strategies that promote second-language acquisition. Because the practice of reading text aloud to students with guided comprehension activities was already part of the teachers’ instructional routine, project staff members focused on refining the practice to optimize language and literacy development for Els, particularly in vocabulary and comprehension.
In a collaborative effort among researchers and campus administrators to address the large number of students in need of supplemental reading intervention (Tier II and Tier III), Project ELITE worked to identify areas in which to strengthen core instruction through principles of culturally responsive pedagogy and instructional strategies that promote second- language acquisition. Because the practice of reading text aloud to students with guided comprehension activities was already part of the teachers’ instructional routine, project staff members focused on refining the practice to optimize language and literacy development for Els, particularly in vocabulary and comprehension.

22. Project ELITE Structured Data Meetings
As part of an effort to improve the efficiency in which students were provided services within a multitiered instructional framework, we designed protocols with guiding questions for structured data meetings. The main objectives of the data meetings were to (1) review student literacy performance data against established benchmarks, (2) collaboratively identify and discuss students’ language and literacy needs, (3) group students according to need (including students in need of Tier II and Tier III instruction), and (4) select and implement evidence-based instructional practices to meet identified needs in all tiers of instruction.
As part of an effort to improve the efficiency in which students were provided services within a multitiered instructional framework, we designed protocols with guiding questions for structured data meetings. The main objectives of the data meetings were to (1) review student literacy performance data against established benchmarks, (2) collaboratively identify and discuss students’ language and literacy needs, (3) group students according to need (including students in need of Tier II and Tier III instruction), and (4) select and implement evidence-based instructional practices to meet identified needs in all tiers of instruction.

23. Project ELITE: Collaborative Coaching for Enhancing Professional Practice
Successful implementation of the model required ongoing, job-embedded support that was responsive to educator needs. DVISD educators participated in a collaborative coaching model that engaged them in strategic reflection on their use of new instructional strategies in their classrooms. The model provides constructive feedback from coaches and trusted colleagues at critical points in the implementation process. It stresses collegial analysis, reflection, and constructive critique as a means of improving knowledge, enhancing practice and increasing effectiveness. Steps in the model include (1) Formal PD and modeling: Teachers receive training that builds their knowledge base on evidence-based practices for Els. These practices are modeled and teachers are guided in planning and implementing practices. (2) Peer collaboration for practice refinement: Project staff members lead ongoing, collaborative grade-level meetings to model effective lessons, foster teacher leadership and guide teachers in planning lessons, (3) Observation and feedback: Project staff members observe teachers’ instruction and provide targeted feedback to improve fidelity to the intervention and optimize the impact on student learning, (4) Self-observation and reflection: Teachers use self-captured videos to reflect on their own practice, based on a guided reflection protocol. Teachers plan next steps to refine and enhance their instructional delivery.
Successful implementation of the model required ongoing, job-embedded support that was responsive to educator needs. DVISD educators participated in a collaborative coaching model that engaged them in strategic reflection on their use of new instructional strategies in their classrooms. The model provides constructive feedback from coaches and trusted colleagues at critical points in the implementation process. It stresses collegial analysis, reflection, and constructive critique as a means of improving knowledge, enhancing practice and increasing effectiveness. Steps in the model include (1) Formal PD and modeling: Teachers receive training that builds their knowledge base on evidence-based practices for Els. These practices are modeled and teachers are guided in planning and implementing practices. (2) Peer collaboration for practice refinement: Project staff members lead ongoing, collaborative grade- level meetings to model effective lessons, foster teacher leadership and guide teachers in planning lessons, (3) Observation and feedback: Project staff members observe teachers’ instruction and provide targeted feedback to improve fidelity to the intervention and optimize the impact on student learning, (4) Self-observation and reflection: Teachers use self-captured videos to reflect on their own practice, based on a guided reflection protocol. Teachers plan next steps to refine and enhance their instructional delivery.