Transcript Lopez_Minda - Dual Language Education of New Mexico

Minda Morren López, Ph.D. Texas State University
[email protected]
Edmund Gorman, Santa Fe Public Schools
[email protected]
(Marie Mendoza, North East ISD, San Antonio, TX)
1




District context
Dual Language Programs
What is RTI?
How this district is implementing RTI with Dual
Language students
 How a classroom teacher implements RTI with
Dual Language students
 Resources
 Total enrollment: 67,361
 Total ELLs: 8,284
 Languages represented: 70+
 Total on free and reduced lunch: 44.4%
 Number of campuses: 65
 Elementary campuses: 44
 90/10 Dual Language programs: 14
 No entry requirements, lottery for L1 English
 L1 Spanish have options for DL, Maintenance Bil & ESL
2.69% .30%
.22%
3.55%
7.04%
31.04%
Hispanic
55.16%
American Indian
Asian
African American
Hispanic/Latino
White
Hawaiian/P.Island
Two or More
5
The Two-Way Immersion/Dual Language
Program in NEISD is an enriched education
program that provides instruction for native
English speaking and native Spanish speaking
students.
 In a Two-Way Immersion/Dual Language Program
students receive instruction in both Spanish and
English.
 This model aims for biliteracy, bilingualism, high
academic achievement in two languages, and
multicultural understanding for all students.
6
Language Distribution by Grade Level
Ideal classes are comprised of up to 50% native English speakers and up
to 50% native Spanish speakers.
Dual Language Participants
2008-2012
Non-LEP Two-Way Students
LEP Two-Way Students
828
622
359
529
178
640
336
147
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2011-2012
Non-ELL Two-Way Students
ELL Two-Way Students
ELL One-Way Students
2,241
2,194
1,958
1,957
828
529
622
640
336 359
147 178
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
TUSCANY
HEIGHTS
Cibolo
Green
Hardy
Dual Language –
K-5
Oak
Wilderness
Oak
Colonial Hills
Approved 2011-12
Bilingual Clusters
ROAN
FOREST
Canyon
Ridge
Dual Language –
K-2
Encino Park
Bulverde
Creek
Stone
Oak
Dual Language –
K-3
El Dorado
Larkspur
Olmos
Regency Place
Ridgeview
REDLAND
OAKS
Steubing
Ranch
Longs
Creek
Huebner
OAK
MEADOW
Dual Language K-2
Coker
East Terrell Hills
Jackson-Keller
Stahl
Steubing Ranch
Walzem
Thousand Oaks
Hidden Forest
STAHL
FOX
RUN
Northern
Hills
Wetmore
Coker
Roan Forest
Bilingual at Steubing
Ranch (east of 281)
or Coker (west of
281)
Bulverde Creek
Canyon Ridge
Cibolo Green
Encino Park
Roan Forest
Stone Oak
Tuscany Heights
Wilderness Oak
Woodstone
HARMONY
HILLS
El Dorado
Larkspur
OAK
GROVE
Clear Spring
Royal Ridge
Castle Hills
Regency
Place
Colonial
Hills Jackson-Keller
SERNA
Windcrest
Northwood
West
DELLVIEW
Ave OLMOS
RIDGEVIEW
WALZEM
Camelot
ETH
WILSHIRE
Bilingual Program Growth: 14%
LEP Student Growth: 17.6%
updated 10/13/2011
What comes to mind when you hear “RTI”?
What does RTI look like in your district or
school or classroom?
 “I attended the RTI meetings and they were very
specific about what should happen at Tier 1..
that was an aha moment for me… all the
changes we have gone through [as a district]
have really been discouraging for teachers, all
the documentation part has been bogging us
down… there has been a misconception of what
the process looks like and it is a lot of work, and
then to think that they [students] might not
qualify [for special education]…” (Dual Language
teacher, October 2011)
 “RTI integrates high quality research based
instruction, assessment, and intervention within a
multi-level prevention system to maximize student
achievement and to reduce behavior problems.
With RTI, schools use data to identify students at
risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student
progress, provide evidence-based intervention,
and adjust the intensity and nature of those
interventions depending on students’
responsiveness...”
The National Center for Response to Intervention (NCRTI, 2010)
 Response to Intervention (RTI) was first
conceptualized by Stanley Deno in 1970 as a
way to address the needs of all students through
early identification and intervention (Buffman, A.,
Mattos, M., Weber, C., 2008)
 IDEA was reauthorized in 2004 and attempted to
ensure that all students receive high quality
instruction and RTI became a part of the policy
vocabulary (IDEA and NCLB) but left out
research with emergent bilinguals
 RTI was added to the federal law and was built
around No Child Left Behind (2000) and the
National Reading Panel findings (2000) and
emphasized access to “effective, scientifically
based instructional strategies and challenging
academic content" (Public Law 107-110, p. 1439-1440)
 State law requires that districts implement RTI
and that interventions are in place before any
special education referrals
Typically is made up of 3 tiers of instruction
 Tier 1 – classroom
instruction & interventions
(80% of students should perform well with this)
 Tier 2 – additional
interventions (30 minutes
daily in small group) (15% of
students should perform well with this additional
intervention)
 Tier 3 – additional
interventions with a
specialist 1:1 or small group
(0-5% of students may need this kind of
intervention and if not effective may need
Special Education services)
 “Sometimes I don’t know where to start on RTI with
my students.” (Dual Language teacher, February, 2012)
 “I know we need to focus first and set the language
issue [for assessing progress in reading], but then
when you are looking at the Dual and ESL children,
the measurement has to be separate” (Dual Language
teacher, October, 2011)
 “We need guidance – we need to know what kind of
interventions are appropriate and effective for Dual
Language students” (Dual Language teacher, September, 2011)
 Assessment
 Diverse population
 Students at various levels of biliteracy in both languages
 Students come in with and respond differently to literacy
instruction in both languages
 Language of instruction
 Teacher competency in both languages and
pedagogical knowledge
 Complexity of understanding how to teach reading
effectively in both languages to students learning in both
languages
 Complexity of knowing how to use assessments and
interventions
Baca, 2009
 Most teachers think of RTI as something used
primarily to identify students for special
education
 Most teachers felt they lacked training and tools
for appropriate interventions for bilingual
populations
 The district shifted RTI from Special Education to
Curriculum Support/School Improvement at the
Central Office
 Began holding informational meetings led by ELA and
Special Education specialists about RTI implementation
district wide
 Trainings attempted to shift the paradigm away from a
focus on special education and interventions. Called
for teachers to plan instruction to “response to
individuals” and take into account the individual
strengths and needs of each student
 The ELL department began to plan effective RTI
implementation for the students across the district
 4,468 students are served in four programs at the
elementary level (as of 3/21/2012)
 One-Way Bilingual Education, Dual Language (Two
Way Immersion), Content-Based ESL, ESL Pull-Out
and supplemental Newcomer Support Services
 All Dual Language programs are strands within
schools, some of those schools have multiple strands
serving emergent bilinguals
“[we want to know more about] what kind
of interventions we need for a child
learning a second language, many
teachers say they shouldn’t be in the [Dual
Language] program and rather than have
that be the answer, we want to be able to
look at interventions” (Dual Language teacher, 10-172011)
“Because of lack of exposure they [teachers]
are confusing the lack of skills with learning
disability.”
(Special education and bilingual teacher, February 23, 2012)
 District providing training and support in
understanding the intersections of disability,
language acquisition, and literacy for principals,
specialists, and teachers
 Principals of campuses serving emergent bilinguals have
mandatory monthly meetings with specific training for
instructional needs and strategies
 Teachers are involved in planning the staff
development offerings--District and Campus Steering
Committees for RTI and ELLs
 Using district funds to assist in paying for master’s
degrees in reading as part of a partnership with a local
university
 Catherine Collier trainings on distinguishing language
from disability – including “Acculturation screen”
1. Conduct district and campus needs assessments
2. Identify research based literacy practices for
instruction in Spanish and English
3. Identify practices that are not implemented
regularly and effectively
4. Identify necessary resources
5. Develop action plans

Professional development, administrative action, early
intervention services
6. Monitor the plans
Adapted from Meadows Center/TEA materials found at http://buildingRTI.utexas.org/.
 No universal screener yet. Spanish options:




AIMSweb
DIBELS
I Station
STAR
 Utilize TPRI (state assessment), guided reading
levels, IRIs (Informal Reading Inventories) and
Fountas & Pinnell leveled system for progress
monitoring
 Supplement core literacy instruction
 Last for 4-6 weeks and are monitored for
effectiveness
 Flexibility is needed across classrooms depending
on student need and teacher expertise
 Created “Roadmap” by and for teachers
 Additional training and support
 Interventions that work for Spanish dominant students in
Spanish reading vs. interventions that work for English
dominant students in Spanish reading and vice versa
 Should interventions occur in strongest language?
(Baca, 2009) What does this mean for literacy
instruction in DL programs?
 Oral Language Development
 Language Experience Approach
 Phonemic awareness
 Phonics
 Contrastive analysis
 Fluency
 Comprehension
 Vocabulary
 important that learning high frequency words begins with words that
are concrete and to which meaning can be attached (e.g. dog, boy,
want) rather than more abstract words (than, what, if) (Escamilla,
2007)
 Meadows Center (UT Austin)
 Focus is to evaluate how core instruction and
interventions are effective for a student
 Students should be compared to other true
peers (ELLs to ELLs; native English speakers to
native English speakers) since their rate of
progress cannot be compared across groups
One for
English and
one for
Spanish
Phonemic
awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Comprehension
Vocabulary
 Ed Gorman
 4th/5th grade Dual Language Teacher
 Santa Fe Public Schools
 Some teachers met and looked at grade levels
and decided schedule according to subject area
in “blocks” so they could share students across
classes
 Benefits for combo classes (science)
 Ease of “sharing” students (side effect—not “my
kids” – “our kids”)
 Instruction is more focused on individual
students’ needs and is data driven
 RTI/ELL task force
 Involving teachers in the decision making level and
getting input into their needs
 Finding a universal screener in Spanish
 IDEL (like DIBELS but Spanish), AIMSweb, TPRI, STAR
 Partnership with a local University to offer onsite
master’s degrees in reading with a specialization
in ELLs
 Giving teachers the training they need to be more
successful in Tier 1 instruction
 Paradigm shifting & More research
 Taking the conversation to the mainstream to improve
Tier 1 instruction for all
To teach in a manner that respects and
cares for the souls of our students is
essential if we are to provide the
necessary conditions where learning can
most deeply and intimately begin.
- bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress
39
 Universal Screeners (list of what is available in
Spanish)
 http://www.rti4success.org/screeningTools
 Training and resources for RTI including
Spanish interventions
 http://buildingrti.utexas.org/rti/