1. Julie Esparza Brown, EdDjebrown@pdx.edu Amanda K. Sanford, PhDasandford@pdx.edu Portland State University RTI for ELs NASP 2013, Seattle, Washington WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 1

2. The information in this presentation is based on the work of; Dr. Julie Esparza Brown, Portland State University Dr. Amanda Sanford, Portland State University Maranda Turner, Gresham-Barlow School District WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 2

3. Objectives of This Session By the end of this presentation, participants will be able to define and discuss: What is culturally and linguistically responsive RTI? What Are the Unique Considerations for Screening and Progress Monitoring ELs ? What should appropriate instruction and intervention include for ELs? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 3

4. Response to Intervention (RTI) At the heart of RTI is the promise to support struggling students to improve their academic performance by providing effective instruction. Thus, RTI has been called a “promising practice” for English Learners (ELs). RTI has shifted the spotlight from referring and placing students into special education to instead pinpointing their academic struggles and generating solutions. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 4

5. Core Features of RTI Universal screening Data-driven decision-making by problem-solving teams of educators Tiered levels of support (increasingly intensive support as needed) Evidence-based instruction delivered with fidelity to the program Progress monitoring Are any of these problematic when student is an EL? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 5

6. RTI for ELLs What components of RTI on the previous slide are problematic when the struggling learner is an English Learner student? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 6

7. Who Are EL Students? The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011) reports the number English Learners (ELs) in public schools rose from 4.7 to 11.2 million between 1980 and 2009 (a 21% increase). ELs are a diverse group representing more than 400 languages, yet what defines them is their need for specialized language support to fully participate in English-only educational programs (Goldenberg, 2008). Of all ELs, 80 percent are Spanish-speakers (Goldenberg, 2008). The majority of them are U.S. born and have received all of their education in American schools. ELs achieve oral fluency in everyday language but lag in measures of academic success and tasks requiring academic language proficiency. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 7

8. Instruction Must Be Culturally and Linguistically Relevant “The cultural knowledge and practices of some students— most often students of color, English language learners and recent immigrants to the United States or students from low-income homes and communities are often times unrecognized or dismissed in attempts to build best practices” (p. 324). Moje & Hinchmon (2004) WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 8

9. Instruction Must Be Culturally and Linguistically Relevant “‘not only addresses student achievement but also helps students to accept and affirm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives that challenge inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate’’ (p. 469). Ladson-Billings (1995) WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 9

10. Instruction Must Be Culturally and Linguistically Relevant “Culturally responsive teaching is a pedagogy that relates students’ cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles to academic knowledge.” Gay(2000) “Human beings interact with their worlds, primarily through mediational means; and these mediational means, the use of cultural artifacts, tools and symbols, including language, play crucial roles in the formation of intellectual capacities’’ (p. 257). Moll (2000) WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 10

11. Sociocultural View of Literacy Reading and writing are not only individual processes of meaning construction but also processes of social and symbolic transactions through which people learn to use written symbols within particular sociocultural worlds. Vygotsky Children are socialized to learn in culturally specific ways. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 11

12. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 12

13. Cultural Relevance Rubric 1. Are the characters in the story like you and your family? Just like us……………………………………… Not at all like us 4 3 2 1 2. Have you ever listed in or visited places like those in the story? Yes………………………………………………………….No 4 3 2 1 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 13

14. Cultural Relevance Rubric 3. Could this story take place this year? Yes…………………………………………………………No 4 3 2 1 4. How close do you think the main characters are to you in age? Very close…………………………………………Not close at all 4 3 2 1 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 14

15. Cultural Relevance Rubric 5. Does the story have main characters who are boys(for boy readers)? Girls (for girl readers)? Yes…………………………………………………………No 4 3 2 1 6. Do the characters talk like you and your family? Yes………….……………………………………………...No 4 3 2 1 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 15

16. Cultural Relevance Rubric 7. How often do you read stories like this one? Often…………………………………………………………Never 4 3 2 1 8. Have you ever had an experience like one described in this story? Yes………….……………………………………………...No 4 3 2 1 Source: Ebe, A. (2012). Supporting the reading development of middle school English language learners through culturally relevant text. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(2), 179-198. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 16

17. What Adjustments Are Needed in an RTI Process for EL Students? How do we ensure RTI is culturally and linguistically appropriate so it meets the needs of ALL learners? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 17

18. Appropriate, effective and evidence-based core curriculum and instruction for ALL students. For English Learners, ELD is provided and is a core subject – NOT an intervention. 80% of each student group are successful. Core plus strategic, evidence-based intervention; a “double dose;” Must include an oracy component for Els 15% of each subgroup may need instruction at this intensity Intensive instruction Must include an oracy component for Els 5% of each subgroup may need instruction at this intensity Tier 1: Universal Tier 2: Strategic Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Interventions Interventions Supplant core supplement core support core RTI for ELs WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 18

19. “In each tier of the RTI process, instruction and intervention must be tailored to meet the unique needs of English learners.” Echevarria & Vogt 2010 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 19

20. RTI and the Common Core State Standards “Higher expectations are likely to result in even greater variability in student performance and increased need for differentiated approaches characterized by RTI.” Wixon & Lipson 2012 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 20

21. RTI IS: A schoolwide process Everyone’s responsibility Collaborative teams determining what will work for each student Recursive Predicated upon effective intervention for all students in general education RTI IS NOT A path toward special education The responsibility of any one person A one-size-fits-all approach Unidirectional Evidence-based instruction and interventions for some WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 21

22. How Do We Effectively Teach English Learners? What do we need to know about ELs background to provide appropriate instruction and interventions? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 22

23. Steps to Knowing Your Students WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 23

24. 1. Know Your Student: Factor 1 English Language Learner (EL) students are a heterogeneous group. EL students in the U.S. represent over 400 languages The largest group are from homes where Spanish is the native language. The nation’s top languages after Spanish are: Chinese Vietnamese Projections estimate that by 2050 non-Hispanic white students will account for only 47% of the U.S. population. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 24

25. Know Your Student: Factor 2 Linguistic Backgrounds Vary Greatly “Second languages develop under an extremely heterogeneous set of conditions, far more diverse than the conditions under which children learn their native language” (Bialstok & Hakuta, 1994, p. 2). EL students may not have the opportunity to fully develop their first language (L1) before adding and preferring the second language (L2). WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 25

26. BICS = Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills CALP = Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (Cummins, 2000) WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 26

27. The Second Language Acquisition Continuum http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoca1Ou_ 6TE&feature=player_embedded Level 1 Entering Level 2 Beginning Level 3 Developing Level 4 Expanding Level 5 Bridging WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 27

28. Simultaneous Bilingualism It is important to know when a child’s second language was introduced. Simultaneous learner is one that learns both languages at the same time. Their proficiency is affected by several factors: –The parents’ or caregivers’ language abilities in one or both languages. –The family’s use of language with the child. Some parents may choose to only speak one language with the child; the chosen language may not be the parent’s stronger language. –The family’s language use. What language(s) do siblings or extended family members use with the child? –The language the child uses in the community. –If children are provided the opportunity to acquire both languages during the critical language learning period, these children will generally develop high levels of both languages... WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 28

29. Sequential Bilingualism. Sequential learner –Early critical period-high proficiency –Early critical period – low proficiency –Late critical period – high proficiency –Late critical period – low proficiency Experts stress separating the languages to make language acquisition easier for kids. When children are learning two languages at the same time parents need to work out language strategies that emphasize boundaries between the languages. If English is the second language, U.S. societal pressures often result in children abandoning their L1 (particularly if it is a low status language like English). WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 29

30. Language All children attempting to learn a new language must learn to distinguish between the two systems of sounds as well as syntactical differences. Language knowledge in two different systems is sometimes evident in children’s oral stories. English learner (EL) young children may produce stories and communication that seems less complex and competent than native English-speakers. However, they likely demonstrate good language skills when allowed to use both of their languages. Dual language learners’ language skills are the sum of L1 and L2!! WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 30

31. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 31

32. Know Your Student: Factor 3 Background Experiences Matter –Country of origin 52% of all EL students are born in the U.S. 11% are foreign born (first generation) Differences in generational language patterns have been identified (Valdes & Figueroa, 1994) –Socioeconomic Status Research suggests significant differences in language use in individuals from low SES backgrounds(Hart & Risley, 2005); these may strongly impact L1 and L2 academic language development WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 32

33. Know Your Student: Factor 4 Educational Experiences Guide Future Instruction –Students who have 4-5 years of formal education in their L1 frequently acquire academic English within one to three years. –These students can transfer what they have learned in L1 to help their learning in L2. –Urban and rural educations in other countries can be vastly different. –A student’s age alone is not a reliable indicator of prior educational experiences. –Students with interrupted instruction may need instruction in many foundational skills no matter their age. –Bilingual program models vary in goals and scope. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 33

34. Know Your Student: Factor 5 Culture is the lens through which we interpret our lives and the world –Culture impacts how we view education Schools must be a two-way bridge from the “school culture” to a students’ home culture –We have to work to find out about people’s values, beliefs, and traditions and to teach them ours; then we need to find a third space for the two to co-exist WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 34

35. 2. Curriculum RTI is predicated upon appropriate instruction for all students in Tier 1 (general education). All instruction in English must be linguistically adjusted commensurate with each student’s level of English language proficiency. Is this happening at your school? Where is this happening? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 35

36. 3: Gather Formative Assessment Data Screening Universal screening is conducted on a regular basis (2 – 3 times per year) for all students Screening assessments are brief, individual, and will identify which students are struggling with core concepts Progress Monitoring Occurs more frequently than screening assessments Tools must be valid and reliable Screening and progress monitoring tools may be the same instrument. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 36

37. What Are the Unique Considerations for Screening and Progress Monitoring ELs ? Reliability: does the assessment produce similar scores across conditions and situations? Reliability is not a particular problem if the tool has good psychometric properties. Validity: does the test measure what you want to assess? Validity may be a problem because assessment results could be influenced by students’ language, cultural and experiential backgrounds. There is evidence for the validity of using CBMs with ELs (Deno, 2005; Wiley & Deno, 2005). However, there are some cautions. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 37

38. Cautions Research suggests that not all reading indicators make the same contribution to reading in non-EL and EL students. For example, a recent study (Quirk & Beem, 2012) found that oral reading fluency (ORF) problems may overestimate the reading comprehension skills for many EL students. The results suggest that both fluency and comprehension assessments are crucial to most accurately identify EL students in need of supplemental instruction. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 38

39. Cautions Baker, Stoolmiller, Good & Baker (2011) hypothesized that “to read fluently, both comprehension and word list fluency are necessary” (p. 344). They found that passage fluency seems to be a better predictor of reading comprehension for English Learners than word reading fluency measures. “This is important because for ELs and other students, passage fluency can be reliably and easily measured, particularly when compared to the challenges of assessing reading comprehension or English language proficiency directly. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 39

40. Implications ELs need instruction in decoding skills, word meanings (vocabulary) and comprehension in an integrated fashion (Baker, et al., 2011). Schools must begin to teach EL students both listening comprehension and reading comprehension as soon as they enter school because they need these skills to benefit from explicit reading comprehension instruction. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 40

41. Commonly Used Assessments for ELs: Screening and Progress Monitoring DIBELS/IDEL –General outcome measure –Benchmark and progress monitoring system based on student continuous assessment –Designed to determine if a student is learning and making progress toward the long term reading goal –Between 2 – 5 minutes to administer per indicator –IDEL is the Spanish version Aimsweb/MIDE –General outcome measure –Benchmark and progress monitoring system based on student continuous assessment –Designed to determine if a student is learning and making progress toward the long term reading goal –Between 2 – 5 minutes to administer per indicator –MIDE is the Spanish version WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 41

42. Commonly Used Assessments for ELs: Screening and Progress Monitoring CORE –Assessment of comprehension skills related to reading. –Makes classroom comparisons. –Some assessments in Spanish but not all. STAR –Computerized benchmark and progress monitoring. –Available in English only. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 42

43. Commonly Used Assessments for ELs: Diagnostic Assessment DRA/EDL Designed to measure the level in which the students can read “independently”. Considered “benchmark” assessments that help teachers measure student progress and are collected at the beginning, middle and/or end of the year. Approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour per student to administer. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 43

44. Screening and Progress Monitoring in a Problem Solving Framework 1.Define the problem (screening) 2.Analyze 3.Develop a Plan 4.Evaluate (progress monitoring) WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 44

45. Define the Problem: Unique Considerations for Screening ELs (Brown & Sanford, 2011) 1.Use tools with demonstrated reliability and validity to identify and monitor students’ needs for instructional support in reading in both L1 and L2. 2.Assess students’ language skills in L1 and L2 to provide an appropriate context regarding evaluation of current levels of performance. 3.Plan instruction based on what you know about the student’s performance and literacy experiences in L1 and L2 and teach for transfer if needed. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 45

46. Evaluate: Unique Considerations for Progress Monitoring ELs (Brown & Sanford, 2011) 1.Monitor student’s progress in all languages of instruction 2.Set rigorous goals that support students to meet grade-level standards 3.Evaluate growth frequently, increasing intensity of instruction (or change interventions) when growth is less than expected 4.Evaluate growth of true peers to determine whether instruction is generally effective for students with similar linguistic and educational experiences 46 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 46

47. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 47

48. Case Studies of EL Students WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 48

49. Scenario 1: Yesenia Yesenia was born in the United States and attended Headstart for one year where she had some instruction in Spanish. She attended a bilingual kindergarten until December and then moved to a school with no bilingual programs. She continues in an English-only program as a first grader. Her language proficiency scores on the Woodcock Muñoz indicate she is a level 3 in English and level 3 in Spanish. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 49

50. FIRST GRADE - DIBELS Decision Criteria – Beg of Yr Yesenia Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) At Risk 0-24 Some Risk 25-36 27 Low Risk 37+ Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Deficit 0-9 Emerging 10-34 30 Established 35+ Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) At Risk 0-12 11 Some Risk 13-23 Low Risk 24+ WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 50

51. FIRST GRADE - IDELDecision Criteria – Beg of Yr Yesenia Fluidez en nombrar letras (FNL) Letter Naming Fluency At Risk 0-19 Some Risk 20-34 Low Risk 35+ 41 Fluidez en la Segmentación de Fonemas (FSF) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Deficit 0-34 Emerging 35-49 Established 50+ 53 Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS) Nonsense Word Fluency At Risk 0-24 Some Risk 25-34 Low Risk 35+ 39 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 51

52. Picture Nonsense Word Fluency Mid-year cutoff at risk Mid-year cutoff low risk Student is on track- continue intensity of instruction; decrease frequency of monitoring to 1x/mo 1. Identify Need for Support2. Validate Need for Support 3. Plan and Implement Support 4. Evaluate and Modify Support 5. Review Outcomes Yesenia – Nonsense Word Fluency Tier 1+ Teach for Transfer (Spanish to English) Monitor Progress every week Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 52

53. Picture Nonsense Word Fluency Mid-year cutoff at risk Mid-year cutoff low risk Student is not on track- implement Research-based Tier 2 intervention; include oral language component for ELs 1. Identify Need for Support2. Validate Need for Support 3. Plan and Implement Support 4. Evaluate and Modify Support 5. Review Outcomes Yesenia – Nonsense Word Fluency Tier 1+ Teach for Transfer (Spanish to English) Monitor Progress every week Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 53

54. Scenario 2: Luis Luis was born in Mexico and is the youngest of five siblings. His family came to the United States when he was 4. In Mexico, while he did not attend preschool, his brothers and sisters attended private schools and spent a lot of time reading stories to him and entertaining him. In their private school, while the instructional language was Spanish, they also learned English. Luis is now in first grade in a bilingual program. His language proficiency scores on the Woodcock Muñoz indicate he is a level 2 in English and level 4 in Spanish. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 54

55. FIRST GRADE - DIBELS Decision Criteria – Beg of Yr Luis Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) At Risk 0-24 Some Risk 25-36 27 Low Risk 37+ Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Deficit 0-9 Emerging 10-34 30 Established 35+ Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) At Risk 0-12 11 Some Risk 13-23 Low Risk 24+ WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 55

56. FIRST GRADE - IDELDecision Criteria – Beg of Yr Luis Fluidez en nombrar letras (FNL) Letter Naming Fluency At Risk 0-19 Some Risk 20-34 33 Low Risk 35+ Fluidez en la Segmentación de Fonemas (FSF) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Deficit 0-34 Emerging 35-49 41 Established 50+ Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS) Nonsense Word Fluency At Risk 0-24 Some Risk 25-34 32 Low Risk 35+ WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 56

57. Picture Mid-year cutoff at risk Mid-year cutoff low risk Continue intensity of instruction, and frequency of PM 1. Identify Need for Support2. Validate Need for Support 3. Plan and Implement Support 4. Evaluate and Modify Support 5. Review Outcomes Luis – Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido Research-based intervention program for PA and Phonics in L1 – Monitor progress 1 x / 2 weeks Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 57

58. Picture Mid-year cutoff at risk Mid-year cutoff low risk Increase intensity of Intervention: 1) Increase intervention fidelity 2) Increase time 3) Smaller Group Size 4) Increase Frequency of Monitoring 1. Identify Need for Support2. Validate Need for Support 3. Plan and Implement Support 4. Evaluate and Modify Support 5. Review Outcomes Luis – Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido Research-based intervention program for PA and Phonics in L1 – Monitor progress 1 x / 2 weeks Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 58

59. Scenario 3: Margarita Margarita came to the United States at the age of one. She attends a bilingual school with an early-exit program model; thus, she is transitioning to English literacy instruction. Her language proficiency scores on the Woodcock Muñoz indicate she is a level 2 in English and level 3 in Spanish. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 59

60. FIRST GRADE - DIBELS Decision Criteria – Beg of Yr Margarita Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) At Risk 0-24 Some Risk 25-36 27 Low Risk 37+ Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Deficit 0-9 Emerging 10-34 30 Established 35+ Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) At Risk 0-12 11 Some Risk 13-23 Low Risk 24+ WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 60

61. FIRST GRADE - IDELDecision Criteria – Beg of Yr Margarita Fluidez en nombrar letras (FNL) Letter Naming Fluency At Risk 0-19 19 Some Risk 20-34 Low Risk 35+ Fluidez en la Segmentación de Fonemas (FSF) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Deficit 0-34 31 Emerging 35-49 Established 50+ Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS) Nonsense Word Fluency At Risk 0-24 12 Some Risk 25-34 Low Risk 35+ WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 61

62. Picture Nonsense Word Fluency Mid-year cutoff at risk Mid-year cutoff low risk Continue intensity of instruction and monitoring 1. Identify Need for Support2. Validate Need for Support 3. Plan and Implement Support 4. Evaluate and Modify Support 5. Review Outcomes Margarita – Nonsense Word Fluency Tier 2+ Research based intervention L2; monitor weekly Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 62

63. Outcomes Driven Moel in a Picture Nonsense Word Fluency Mid-year cutoff at risk Mid-year cutoff low risk Increase intensity of Intervention: 1) Increase intervention fidelity 2) Increase time 3) Smaller Group Size 1. Identify Need for Support2. Validate Need for Support 3. Plan and Implement Support 4. Evaluate and Modify Support 5. Review Outcomes Margarita – Nonsense Word Fluency Tier 2+ Research based intervention L2; monitor weekly Adapted from DIBELS/IDEL Research Team 2006 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 63

64. Scenario 4: Chuy Chuy was born in Guatemala and is the middle of three siblings. His family came to the United States when he was 2. In Guatemala his family spoke Mam as their native language and in his limited school instruction, instruction was in Spanish, the national language. After his family moved to the United States, he attended a Spanish Headstart program where instruction was in Spanish. His preschool recommended consideration for special education at that time. Chuy is now in kindergarten in a bilingual program. His language proficiency scores on the Woodcock Muñoz indicate he is a level 1 in English and level 2 in Spanish. There is no proficiency available in Mam. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 64

65. Kindergarten- DIBELS Decision Criteria – Beg of Yr Luis Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) At Risk 8 Some Risk Low Risk Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) ISF: 14 emerging Deficit 1 Emerging Established Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) At Risk Some Risk 13-23 6 Low Risk 24+ WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 65

66. Kindergarten- IDELDecision Criteria – Beg of Yr Luis Fluidez en nombrar letras (FNL) Letter Naming Fluency At Risk Some Risk 20-34 25 Low Risk Fluidez en la Segmentación de Fonemas (FSF) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Deficit 0 (0 sil) Emerging Established Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido (FPS) Nonsense Word Fluency At Risk 0 Some Risk Low Risk WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 66

67. intensive evidence-based Intervention, includes oracy component (5% of all students) Core plus strategic evidence-based intervention; “double dose”; must include oracy component (15% of all students) Core curriculum & instruction for ALL students: school-wide reading, behavior, math and/or writing, includes sheltered and linguistically appropriate instruction and culturally relevant teaching (80% of all students disaggregated by subgroups) For ELS: Core includes English language development instruction L anguage modeling & opportunities for practice; Use visuals and graphic organizers S ystematic & explicit instruction; S trategic use of native language and P re-teach critical vocabulary; PLUSS teaching for transfer What are your current practices for ELs at each tier? WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 67

68. PLUSS Rationale Problem: There are limited intervention programs that include English Learners (Els) in their research base. Solution: We reviewed the literature to identify evidence-based practices for ELs and organized our findings into the acronym PLUSS. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 68

69. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 69

70. P: Preteach Critical Vocabulary Research BaseExamples Calderón, 2007 ; Carlo, et al. 2004; Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2008; Linan- Thompson & Vaughn, 2007. Realia or Photos Word Splash Personal Dictionaries 4 Corners Vocabulary Frayer Model Find the Card WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 70

71. L: Language Modeling and Opportunities for Using Academic Language Research BaseExamples Dutro & Moran, 2003; Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2008; Gibbons, 2009; Linan- Thompson & Vaughn, 2007; ScarcELa, 2003. Sentence Stems or Frames Signal Words Questioning Prompts Choral/Echo Response Chunk – n - Chew Say Something Chime-In Reading Pass the Card WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 71

72. U: Use Visuals and Graphic Organizers Research BaseExamples Brechtal, 2001; Echevarria & Graves, 1998; Haager & Klingner, 2005; Linan-Thompson & Vaughn, 2007; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990 Illustrated Word Wall Frozen Moment Expository Text Organizers Framed Outline Storyboards/Comic Strips/Movie Clips WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 72

73. S: Systematic and Explicit Instruction in Reading Components and Strategies Research BaseExamples Calderón, 2007; Carnine, Silbert & Kame’enui, 1997; Faggela-Luby & Deshler, 2008; Gibbons, 2009, Haager & Klingner, 2005; Klingner & Vaughn, 2000 Preview/View/Review Backwards Book Walk SQP2RS “Squeepers” QAR: Question Answer Relationships Stop & Think Reverse Think Aloud Read, Cover, Remember, Retell WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 73

74. S: Strategic Use of Native Language Research BaseExamples Carlisle, Beeman, David & Spharim, 1999; Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006; Odlin, 1989; Schecter, & Bayley, 2002; Identifying & Using Cognates Pair Paraphrase Dual Language Glossary Selection Summaries WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 74

75. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 75

76. Intervention Programs use a Direct Instruction Approach Direction instruction includes: Step-by-step instruction. –New concepts and skills are taught by the teacher in small steps to ensure success the first time something is presented – thus avoiding time consuming and repetitious reteaching. Practice to mastery. –Students have ample opportunity to practice all concepts and skills so they generalize and apply the strategies they are learning. This emphasis on mastery. On-going assessment. –Students’ skill level is determined with entry-level assessment prior to instruction. Frequent, in-program mastery tests allow for continuous monitoring of student progress. Because this on-going assessment is closely linked to instruction and curriculum activities, teachers are able to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, determine whether students are making adequate progress, and identify students at risk of difficulty and in need of specialized instruction. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 76

77. Direct Instruction Teaching Sequence Model Lead Test Re-test “ My turn…” “Do it with me…” “Your turn…” “ Again…” Teacher Teacher and Student “Starting over…” WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 77

78. Common Intervention Programs Reading Mastery Horizons Rewards WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 78

79. Horizons Horizons provides systematic instruction using Direct Instruction techniques. Horizon’s instructional sequence incorporates: – word attack –story reading –comprehension exercises –Spelling –Daily, independent work Levels A, B, and Fast Track A-B build a solid foundation for fluency and comprehension by systematically teaching phonemic awareness and phonics. Fast Track C-D expands key decoding and vocabulary skills while developing higher order thinking and comprehension strategies. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 79

80. Horizons Learning to Read Level B: Lessons 3 - 6 Read through the lesson to familiarize yourself with the structure and activities. Once you have the “big picture” of the lesson, develop: –Content goals –Language goals WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 80

81. Walking Through the Lesson Begin with S: Systematic and explicit instruction Read each exercise to identify the places where students need additional opportunities to practice skill or scaffolding. Content objectives are usually included at the beginning of each lesson. This is not the case with Horizons so develop your own based on the skills presented in the lesson. In the PLUSS model, the first S is teaching the intervention program script. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 81

82. Lesson 3 Exercises 1 - 4 –After reviewing Exercises 1 - 4, we determined there was no need for additional scaffolding. Exercise 5 –After step g, before individual turns, use picture cards to help students understand the meaning of the words –Show students picture cards (see U)… –L: … Exercises 1 – 4 call for choral word practice which allows all students to practice all words. In Exercise 5 we noticed that the four target words play a key role in the next four lessons. We wanted to ensure that students understood the meanings since most of them are Tier 2 (Beck & McKeown)) words (or polysemous). WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 82

83. Lesson 3 Exercise 6 –Rather than calling on individual students, use choral or echo reading. Exercise 7 –After reading through the exercise, it appears that the intent of the exercise (comprehension questions) is to prepare students to retell the story. –Consider your students to decide if they need all of the comprehension questions and an organizer. –Use graphic organizer for story sequencing. The lesson directs each student to practice 1 – 2 sentences in the story. To allow all students to practice all sentences in a scaffolded way, we use either choral or echo reading instead. After reviewing Exercise 7, we found the comprehension questions to be overly detailed and overwhelming. Since the goal seems to be retelling the story, we taught the students a more authentic way of retelling the story. They practice their retell using the word cards after they have completed the comprehension questions. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 83

84. Lesson 3 Exercise 8 –Follow as indicated. Decide whether Exercise 9 – 12 will be useful for your students. After reviewing Exercise 8, we note that every child is engaged throughout the activity - one students answers a questions and then all students repeat the answer. Most instructional blocks are 30 – 40 minutes in length. Including Exercises 9 – 12 takes an additional 20 minutes. Exercises 9 – 12 are writing activities so we elected to focus the instructional time on the literacy portions of the lesson. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 84

85. Lesson 4 Exercises 1 - 5 –After reviewing Exercises 1 -5, there was no need for additional scaffolding. Exercise 6 –Before reading the text, review the words and picture cards from lesson 3. –Encourage students to use the sentence frame (from Lesson 3) to practice their definitions. Exercises 1 – 5 call for choral word practice which allows all students to practice all words When working with ELs we know it is important to give multiple opportunities to practicing using language. Thus, we added picture cards and the use of a sentence frame. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 85

86. Lesson 4 Exercise 6 –Rather than calling on individual students, use choral or echo reading. Exercise 7 –After asking the comprehension questions, use cards with sequence words (e.g., first, next, then, last) –As a group or in pairs, have students retell the story using the sequence word cards. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 86

87. Lesson 4 Exercise 8 –Follow as indicated. Decide whether Exercise 9 – 12 will be useful for your students. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 87

88. Lesson 5 Exercises 1 - 5 –After reviewing Exercises 1 -5, there was no need for additional scaffolding. Exercise 6 –Before reading the text, review the words and picture cards from lesson 3. –Present students with the word cards; review how the words are different (i.e., different vowel sounds) –Encourage students to match pictures to the words, or go back to text of Lesson 3 or 4 and share a sentence that uses the words. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 88

89. Lesson 5 Exercise 6 –Rather than calling on individual students, use choral or echo reading. Exercise 7 –After asking the comprehension questions, use cards with sequence words (e.g., first, next, then, last) –As a group or in pairs, have students retell the story using the sequence word cards. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 89

90. Lesson 5 Exercise 8 –Follow as indicated. Decide whether Exercise 9 – 12 will be useful for your students. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 90

91. Lesson 6 Exercises 1 - 4 –After reviewing Exercises 1 -4, there was no need for additional scaffolding. Exercise 5 –Rather than calling on individual students, use choral or echo reading. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 91

92. Lesson 6 Exercise 6 –After asking the comprehension questions, use cards with sequence words (e.g., first, next, then, last) –As a group or in pairs, have students retell the story using the sequence word cards. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 92

93. Lesson 6 Exercise 7 –Follow as indicated. Decide whether Exercises 8 – 11 will be useful for your students. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 93

94. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 94

95. References Baker, D.L., Stoolmiller, M., Good, R., & Baker, S. (2011). Effect of reading comprehension on passage fluency in Spanish and English for second-grade English learners. School Psychology Review, 40(3), 331-351. Brown, J.E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. Boulder, CO: National Center for Culturally Relevant Educational Systems. Echevarria, Echevarria, J.J., & Vogt, M.E. (2010). Response to intervention (RTI) and English learners: Making it happen. Lebanon, IN: Pearson. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 95

96. References Keller-Margulis, M.A., Payan, A, & Booth, C. (2012). Reading curriculum-based measures in Spanish: An examination of validity and diagnostic accuracy. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 212-223. Wikson, K.K., & Lipson, M.Y. (2012). Between the CCSS and RTI in literacy and language. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 387-391. U.S. Congress. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education act, reauthorization. Washington, DC: Author. Available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/apeced/guid/idea2004.html WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 96

97. References Quirk, M., & Been, S. (2012). Examining the relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension for English language learners. Psychology in the Schools, 49(6), 539 – 553. Sandberg, K.L., & Reschly, A.L. (2011). English learners: Challenges in assessment and the promise of curriculum- based measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 146-154. Sanford, A., & Brown, J.E. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center on Response to Intervention. WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 97

98. References Wikson, K.K., & Lipson, M.Y. (2012). Between the CCSS and RTI in literacy and language. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 387-391. U.S. Congress. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education act, reauthorization. Washington, DC: Author. Available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/apeced/guid/idea2004.html WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 98

99. Contact Information Dr. Julie Esparza Brown Portland State University jebrown@pdx.edu 503-725-4696 Dr. Amanda K. Sanford Portland State University asanford@pdx.edu 503-725-4638 WS27_Julie Esparza Brown & Amanda K. Sanford_1 99